Quote: I would be thrilled if Bibi decides to take out the Iran nuclear program without U.S. involvement. It can't happen soon enough.
I don't think we should have any influence there at all. If they want to do something like that then do it. Take the repercussions from it as well. Unfortunately that wont happen since a large portion of congress are delegates from hard line Israel and not from the US.
Bibi will keep bring doom rhetoric and fear that his own intelligence agency disagrees with and the right in Israel and the US will keep lapping it up. Hopefully he loses the election.
Quote:I don't think we should have any influence there at all. If they want to do something like that then do it. Take the repercussions from it as well. Unfortunately that wont happen since a large portion of congress are delegates from hard line Israel and not from the US.
Bibi will keep bring doom rhetoric and fear that his own intelligence agency disagrees with and the right in Israel and the US will keep lapping it up. Hopefully he loses the election.
I'm positive that we have a different view in what's considered hard line pro Israel positions and hard line pro U.S, positions. While I agree that many in Congress consider themselves strong Israel supporters, I think what they advocate in many cases actually hurts Israel. One major example of this is so called Foreign Aid. Like I mentioned in another thread, it would be in the best interest of both countries that Israel didn't receive Foreign Aid but the enemies of both Israel and the U.S. would no longer get any foreign aid. Even just from an economic view, that would be a huge boost for both countries. Unlike many on the right who considered themselves pro Israel supporters, I want AIPAC to disappear. This is an organization that causes more harm to Israel than the vast majority of Israel supporters realize.
Where we also probably have a different view is I don't trust Obama and the people surrounding him, period. It doesn't matter the issue.
As for the upcoming Israeli elections, my take is all of the parties running in the election are problematic. To differing degrees. I'm not sure if it's better if Bibi / Likud remains in power. While there are parties in the election that are much further to the left than Likud, I think their would be more opposition from a large portion of the people of Israel if they attempt to carry out what would be suicidal policies for Israel. With Likud, most people consider them right wing, which actually leads to less opposition when they attempt to implement dangerous polices for Israel. The fact that Bibi basically pushed MK member Moshe Feiglin off the Likud slate in the current election illustrates how dangerous Bibi is from my standpoint. Feiglin is in a very small minority of current MK members ( there are 120 overall ) that I agree with AND trust on many ( not all ) of what I consider the key issues.
Quote: I'm positive that we have a different view in what's considered hard line pro Israel positions and hard line pro U.S, positions. While I agree that many in Congress consider themselves strong Israel supporters, I think what they advocate in many cases actually hurts Israel. One major example of this is so called Foreign Aid. Like I mentioned in another thread, it would be in the best interest of both countries that Israel didn't receive Foreign Aid but the enemies of both Israel and the U.S. would no longer get any foreign aid. Even just from an economic view, that would be a huge boost for both countries. Unlike many on the right who considered themselves pro Israel supporters, I want AIPAC to disappear. This is an organization that causes more harm to Israel than the vast majority of Israel supporters realize.
Where we also probably have a different view is I don't trust Obama and the people surrounding him, period. It doesn't matter the issue.
As for the upcoming Israeli elections, my take is all of the parties running in the election are problematic. To differing degrees. I'm not sure if it's better if Bibi / Likud remains in power. While there are parties in the election that are much further to the left than Likud, I think their would be more opposition from a large portion of the people of Israel if they attempt to carry out what would be suicidal policies for Israel. With Likud, most people consider them right wing, which actually leads to less opposition when they attempt to implement dangerous polices for Israel. The fact that Bibi basically pushed MK member Moshe Feiglin off the Likud slate in the current election illustrates how dangerous Bibi is from my standpoint. Feiglin is in a very small minority of current MK members ( there are 120 overall ) that I agree with AND trust on many ( not all ) of what I consider the key issues.
I do not understand overwhelming distrust of the president TBH. I dislike the viewpoints of many republican candidates but I do not distrust them anymore than I distrust politicians in general, which is to say I generally just distrust them lol. I think the idea the right has formed with their base is this disingenuous idea that the left are not "real Americans" or traitors or w/e... It's silly and it's against everything country was founded on to attempt to silence political thought in such a manner as matter of policy.
I believe what you are saying in regards to foreign aid is that we should not give non humanitarian aid to foreign countries. I think we do agree on foreign aid if that is the case.
You are very much more informed than I on the goings on in Israel. That is very obvious. I only know what the current PM says and how he speaks about things. They way he speaks and the actions he takes are all the basis I have for my opinion on the matter. In the end I don't think our perspective should matter much. I dislike us meddling in their politics almost as much as I dislike Israel interfering in out politics.
Quote:Who said that? I said the action these 47 senators took does nothing to build, strength or change any negotiations just simply a letter saying we'll be here long after he's gone so anything you can hammer out is pointless.
It's the same as Pelosi going to Assad when Bush was trying to isolate them, it's wrong on both parties side, just the republicans tend to make stupid moves in mass.
I understood your point and was adding a compliment.
Quote:I understood your point and was adding a compliment.
I don't think you do, congress does have a role in foreign affairs. But what they did here is going beyond that role. To say they should have no role isn't correct.
Quote:Neither of those are the Iranian government
So who do you think the Iranian government has ties to?
Quote:So who do you think the Iranian government has ties to?
We have more ties to ISIS than the Iranian government. Seriously, the Iranian government and ISIS are sworn enemies.
Quote:I don't think you do, congress does have a role in foreign affairs. But what they did here is going beyond that role. To say they should have no role isn't correct.
So what is congress' scope within their role involving foreign policy, NOT affairs?
Quote:We have more ties to ISIS than the Iranian government. Seriously, the Iranian government and ISIS are sworn enemies.
So again what terrorist organizations does the Iranian government have ties to?
Quote:So again what terrorist organizations does the Iranian government have ties to?
I think it's Hezbollah but I can't keep them all straight I just know ISIS and Iran are sworn enemies. ISIS was formed to take on Assad one of Irans strongest allies.
Quote:So again what terrorist organizations does the Iranian government have ties to?
Hezbollah.
The US government has more ties to terrorists organizations than Iran does and I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret. We already have nukes. So tell me again how Iran is the worst country in the world and we should not negotiate with them.
Quote:So what is congress' scope within their role involving foreign policy, NOT affairs?
Well for starters congress has to ratify treaties, declare war, they have the power of the purse in regards to forieng aid they have a huge role in foreign affairs and policy.
My problem was the 47 senators going outside that role and sending a letter of communication to contradict the state department to a foreign head of state.
Quote:So what is congress' scope within their role involving foreign policy, NOT affairs?
According to Supreme Court Justice Sutherland, he wrote in the majority oppinion in United State vs Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
"The president alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiations the senate cannot intrude, and congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Quote:I think it's Hezbollah but I can't keep them all straight I just know ISIS and Iran are sworn enemies. ISIS was formed to take on Assad one of Irans strongest allies.
Hezbollah, Jihad, Hamas, Shia, and the Iran Revolutionary Guard.
It's a known fact they have worked with other terrorists groups to carry out attacks against US allies and embassy's in the Middle East.
Quote:Hezbollah.
The US government has more ties to terrorists organizations than Iran does and I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret. We already have nukes. So tell me again how Iran is the worst country in the world and we should not negotiate with them.
I would be careful with that statement about the US.
Iran has maintained a hostile stance not just towards the US, to our allies and Israel. They have a public history of funding terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against Western military going back to the bombings in Beirut.
Quote:Well for starters congress has to ratify treaties, declare war, they have the power of the purse in regards to forieng aid they have a huge role in foreign affairs and policy.
My problem was the 47 senators going outside that role and sending a letter of communication to contradict the state department to a foreign head of state.
And that was my point when I said congress should not be meddling in international politics (discussions). They have a role in foreign policy.
Quote:I would be careful with that statement about the US.
Iran has maintained a hostile stance not just towards the US, to our allies and Israel. They have a public history of funding terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against Western military going back to the bombings in Beirut.
So again I ask you, we should not be negotiating with them?
Quote:And that was my point when I said congress should not be meddling in international politics (discussions). They have a role in foreign policy.
Ok I just simply didn't understand what you where saying, my bad. I agree they don't have a role in foreign negotiations.
Quote:So again I ask you, we should not be negotiating with them?
I really don't think we should be negotiating with them if it involves them acquiring nuclear technology. However that's a fight we have to have internally, as far as the rest of the world is concerned we should have one face. Otherwise what's the point of this union?