(12-22-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 10:14 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]But why do we have to publicly recognize it, knowing it would anger the rest of the world? What purpose does it serve other than to basically "flip the bird" at the people who disagree? We could have kept quiet and our relationship with Israel would've still been as strong as it ever was. I'm not arguing the point of whether or not Jerusalem should be considered the capital. I'm saying, why did we even have to get into this mess by stating publicly that we did recognize it?
A better question is why the rest of the world is angry at our choice of putting an embassy in a country's capital. When has any country EVER questioned the placement of an embassy before now?
Frankly I hope the next time one of those countries has a natural disaster or is invaded, the US just says "good luck getting Palestinian aid."
When that territory that city sits on, is being disputed. This is a real "hot-button" issue in the middle east and once more, we stuck our nose into somewhere it doesn't belong.
(12-23-2017, 04:02 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
A better question is why the rest of the world is angry at our choice of putting an embassy in a country's capital. When has any country EVER questioned the placement of an embassy before now?
Frankly I hope the next time one of those countries has a natural disaster or is invaded, the US just says "good luck getting Palestinian aid."
When that territory that city sits on, is being disputed. This is a real "hot-button" issue in the middle east and once more, we stuck our nose into somewhere it doesn't belong.
Lol, lots of things that are disputed aren't wrong. Jerusalem is Israel's capitol, no matter what the Muslim world and their dhimmi states in Europe think. Personally I can't wait for the hysterics when we recognize Taiwan as a nation, gonna be a good time.
I don't see that happening. I have no problems with moving our embassy to Jerusalem, but a LOT will have to change before recognizing Taiwan as a nation. It's clear China respects strength, but they are not pushovers. I think Trump knows this.
(12-23-2017, 09:14 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see that happening. I have no problems with moving our embassy to Jerusalem, but a LOT will have to change before recognizing Taiwan as a nation. It's clear China respects strength, but they are not pushovers. I think Trump knows this.
Part of the art of the deal is to keep your opponent off balance. Taiwan is China's thorn and we can use that to our advantage as they become more aggressive in the China Sea. And Trump Hair don't care.
(12-22-2017, 02:10 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 01:26 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]No. Using your military around the globe as aggressors to influence, destabilise and take control is ,by your countries definition, terrorism. There isn't a single nation that holds close to the reach aggressive US foreign policy has had around the globe on different continents. There isn't a single nation that interferes more politically with other sovereign nations.
And I don't hate the US. Theres clear benefits to the US being the global bully, in fact it benefits my country more than most. I just think A) The guise that what America is doing overseas is ultimately for a noble goal is ridiculous and B) There is a bubble effect going on where the US public is completely desensitised to how brutal US foreign policy is, how vast it reaches and how many millions of lives it negatively influences. Seeing yourself as the global deity who decides what happens and when isn't something to aspire too.
OK, so it isn't that a military influences other governments, it's that the US does it more often? What is your argument? Is it only terrorism based on the amount that it's done or not? What about when the UN, which your country is a member, uses their military force to interfere with issues in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, etc.? Your argument is flawed. It's based on the idea that America's actions are inherently bad and therefore so are whatever actions by her military. Your argument is only reliable if you ignore that this literally happens every day by almost all other countries in some form or another. Also, the definition of terrorism doesn't require a military. You're using military to exclusively apply that label to America.
No it's done by big powers with the US being the most insidious offender. Anything in retlatiation is labeled terrorism which of course creates a vicious circle where the US is only there to kill terrorists.
And again I don't agree with the UN or with the Army they are building. I'm not a blind nationalist. Being Irish doesn't mean I agree with Ireland and how they operate.
My argument is against the US as a hegemonic power that does as it pleases. By its own definition it is a terrorist. Except we only call certain people terrorists. Theres no "freedom fighters" unless they're on the US side.
(12-23-2017, 11:29 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 02:10 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so it isn't that a military influences other governments, it's that the US does it more often? What is your argument? Is it only terrorism based on the amount that it's done or not? What about when the UN, which your country is a member, uses their military force to interfere with issues in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, etc.? Your argument is flawed. It's based on the idea that America's actions are inherently bad and therefore so are whatever actions by her military. Your argument is only reliable if you ignore that this literally happens every day by almost all other countries in some form or another. Also, the definition of terrorism doesn't require a military. You're using military to exclusively apply that label to America.
No it's done by big powers with the US being the most insidious offender. Anything in retlatiation is labeled terrorism which of course creates a vicious circle where the US is only there to kill terrorists.
And again I don't agree with the UN or with the Army they are building. I'm not a blind nationalist. Being Irish doesn't mean I agree with Ireland and how they operate.
My argument is against the US as a hegemonic power that does as it pleases. By its own definition it is a terrorist. Except we only call certain people terrorists. Theres no "freedom fighters" unless they're on the US side.
You went from defining terrorism as a country that uses its military for political reasons / gains (every country in the world) to being specific to the "big powers", which the US stands atop. Do I understand correctly? You're changing your argument to fit your narrative. You want to look at the US as terrorists, so you're changing your own argument to do it.
I don't think you're a nationalist. I just think you want to look at this a certain way and you build your argument around it. As for the UN, to which Ireland is a member, uses their military force for political reasons. That would make Ireland no less than an accomplice to terrorism. I was just bring them into it because they fit your initial argument.
I think this last sentence openly shows your bias. You just don't like that the US has the power. Without the US, China or Russia would fill the vacuum. Are those more preferable options? There will always be a dominant society, and the US is the best option available. I'd much rather them not be engaged in war with anyone; I just don't see what they're doing as terrorism.
Also, your definition is not the definition of terrorism.
(12-23-2017, 12:04 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (12-23-2017, 11:29 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]No it's done by big powers with the US being the most insidious offender. Anything in retlatiation is labeled terrorism which of course creates a vicious circle where the US is only there to kill terrorists.
And again I don't agree with the UN or with the Army they are building. I'm not a blind nationalist. Being Irish doesn't mean I agree with Ireland and how they operate.
My argument is against the US as a hegemonic power that does as it pleases. By its own definition it is a terrorist. Except we only call certain people terrorists. Theres no "freedom fighters" unless they're on the US side.
You went from defining terrorism as a country that uses its military for political reasons / gains (every country in the world) to being specific to the "big powers", which the US stands atop. Do I understand correctly? You're changing your argument to fit your narrative. You want to look at the US as terrorists, so you're changing your own argument to do it.
I don't think you're a nationalist. I just think you want to look at this a certain way and you build your argument around it. As for the UN, to which Ireland is a member, uses their military force for political reasons. That would make Ireland no less than an accomplice to terrorism. I was just bring them into it because they fit your initial argument.
I think this last sentence openly shows your bias. You just don't like that the US has the power. Without the US, China or Russia would fill the vacuum. Are those more preferable options? There will always be a dominant society, and the US is the best option available. I'd much rather them not be engaged in war with anyone; I just don't see what they're doing as terrorism.
Also, your definition is not the definition of terrorism.
No if you follow the trail I've said it's foreign aggressors using the military and violence to destabilise, take control of land and influence/interfere with governments. Most big powers do it to some degree. None do it around the globe s much as the US nor cause as much damage.
Yes I don't agree with Irish involvement in anything of the sort. We are supposedly a neutral country that picks and chooses when to do so. Now it's looking like that we will be forced to join the UNs new army, which I detest.
And no I don't like that the US has that power nor do I have to. Let's not pretend that the US's ultimate goal is anything other than self preservation. What American imperialism is and what many Americans think it is can be quite different.
And the definition of terrorism fits. Difference being that America considers anything it does in "war" or "self defense" non terroristic. Where as if someone retaliates using "war" or "self defense" then it's "terrorism". The US can kill as many civilians as it wants in pursuit of their objective. And does so regularly (while also hiding the numbers)
(12-23-2017, 01:18 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-23-2017, 12:04 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You went from defining terrorism as a country that uses its military for political reasons / gains (every country in the world) to being specific to the "big powers", which the US stands atop. Do I understand correctly? You're changing your argument to fit your narrative. You want to look at the US as terrorists, so you're changing your own argument to do it.
I don't think you're a nationalist. I just think you want to look at this a certain way and you build your argument around it. As for the UN, to which Ireland is a member, uses their military force for political reasons. That would make Ireland no less than an accomplice to terrorism. I was just bring them into it because they fit your initial argument.
I think this last sentence openly shows your bias. You just don't like that the US has the power. Without the US, China or Russia would fill the vacuum. Are those more preferable options? There will always be a dominant society, and the US is the best option available. I'd much rather them not be engaged in war with anyone; I just don't see what they're doing as terrorism.
Also, your definition is not the definition of terrorism.
No if you follow the trail I've said it's foreign aggressors using the military and violence to destabilise, take control of land and influence/interfere with governments. Most big powers do it to some degree. None do it around the globe s much as the US nor cause as much damage.
Yes I don't agree with Irish involvement in anything of the sort. We are supposedly a neutral country that picks and chooses when to do so. Now it's looking like that we will be forced to join the UNs new army, which I detest.
And no I don't like that the US has that power nor do I have to. Let's not pretend that the US's ultimate goal is anything other than self preservation. What American imperialism is and what many Americans think it is can be quite different.
And the definition of terrorism fits. Difference being that America considers anything it does in "war" or "self defense" non terroristic. Where as if someone retaliates using "war" or "self defense" then it's "terrorism". The US can kill as many civilians as it wants in pursuit of their objective. And does so regularly (while also hiding the numbers)
Tell that to the hundreds if not thousands of US servicemen who've been injured because of our very restrictive ROEs. When the enemy fights us man to man they lose, so they turn to bombing markets and decapitating civilians instead.
Well the cuts have started.
The US has cut $285M from it's annual dole to the corrupt UN. It should have cut the full $1.2B, but this is a start.
(12-26-2017, 12:28 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Well the cuts have started.
The US has cut $285M from it's annual dole to the corrupt UN. It should have cut the full $1.2B, but this is a start.
Yep, and it helps cover some of the losses from Trump's golf trips.
(12-26-2017, 01:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2017, 12:28 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Well the cuts have started.
The US has cut $285M from it's annual dole to the corrupt UN. It should have cut the full $1.2B, but this is a start.
Yep, and it helps cover some of the losses from Trump's golf trips.
Imagine how much the UN Building would go for on the NYC market...
(12-22-2017, 09:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 03:28 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Our relationship with Israel was fine, before he decided to tick off the rest of the world. We didn't need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital. We already had a very good relationship with Israel. We're their biggest ally in a region of the world where their very existence is challenged. Why rock the boat by making such an unpopular decision with the rest of the world? What good did it do us? It was a power move by Trump. Nothing more. The rest of the world was against it, so he just had to prove he had the power to do it anyway. It sounds like the same kind of thought process as a little North Korean dictator, if you ask me.
Why do we accept Pyongyang as NK's capital? Why do we accept Tehran as Iran's capital?
Because of the hundreds if not thousands of years of history that make it so.
Jerusalem is Israel's capital by that same criteria. Not from a biblical sense (I'm an atheist) but historical fact dictates it.
You cannot separate these two.
(12-26-2017, 10:16 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-22-2017, 09:39 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Why do we accept Pyongyang as NK's capital? Why do we accept Tehran as Iran's capital?
Because of the hundreds if not thousands of years of history that make it so.
Jerusalem is Israel's capital by that same criteria. Not from a biblical sense (I'm an atheist) but historical fact dictates it.
You cannot separate these two.
Confucius say, man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/world...-site.html
He also say, man who enter airport turnstile sideways going to Bangkok, but that's a lesson for another day.
Curious why Christians are so friendly with the group who crucified their messiah?
(12-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Indy2Jax Wrote: [ -> ]Curious why Christians are so friendly with the group who crucified their messiah?
The reasons are complex and not permitted here.
(12-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Indy2Jax Wrote: [ -> ]Curious why Christians are so friendly with the group who crucified their messiah?
Oh,
this is going to end well for you.
(12-27-2017, 12:12 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2017, 10:16 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot separate these two.
Confucius say, man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/world...-site.html
He also say, man who enter airport turnstile sideways going to Bangkok, but that's a lesson for another day.
I'm not always quite sure what point you intend to make, but in this case your post supports mine.
(12-27-2017, 01:50 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2017, 12:12 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Confucius say, man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/world...-site.html
He also say, man who enter airport turnstile sideways going to Bangkok, but that's a lesson for another day.
I'm not always quite sure what point you intend to make, but in this case your post supports mine.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be saying there was only Biblical evidence for Jewish ownership of ancient Jerusalem.
(12-27-2017, 02:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2017, 01:50 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not always quite sure what point you intend to make, but in this case your post supports mine.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be saying there was only Biblical evidence for Jewish ownership of ancient Jerusalem.
Oh, my...you think the linked article refuted this?
Well...we'll just have to let this go without further discussion.