Guest yod Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 but I can't prove a negative so it would be incumbent on you to show where these people are anti-Israel. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a running gator see obvious facts or give a substantive rebuttal. It honestly appears that you only want to inject strife into all discussions to uphold a reputation of being an eternal antagonist. You are arguing just for the sake of being devil's advocate If you honestly can't see that America is about to throw Israel under the bus, then you will see it soon enough....but it will be too late for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 All I have been given is conjecture and unsubstantiated accusations. You say a guy (or a group of them) is anti-Israel, and yet you dont offer one thing to back it up and then you demand that I show you are wrong. that is not really the way it works. The proof for this has been backed up many times by the historical record of the people Obama is appointing and their statements. I've seen many posts here lately quoting what his people are doing/saying which are 100% consistent with what this article say about a "soon" change in our support of Israel. As much time as you spend arguing on these boards, I see no reason to repeat what has been openly posted and discussed since long before you arrived with a monkey-wrench. The article posted gives the names of the people whom he has put in charge and they have a traceable history of being anti-Israel. Obama has implied his support for the "Saudi Plan" on a few occasions...people within his administration and inner circle have made numerous statements since he announced his intention to run for President much like the one you are dismissing here. I could go on and on but your M.O tells me you would act like you never saw it Nothing in this article is a new revelation. We've been "proving" it since the campaign trail....maybe you weren't looking? I hope this thread is an occasion to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Nothing you have shown me is any different than with the guy in the White House for the last 8 years. I am NOT going to defend Bush's actions as if they were "good" for Israel but my opinion is that the James Baker State Department has been running this since 1990. It doesn't matter who the President is, they are going to bat for the State Department's wishes. Bill Clinton was directly involved in Israeli elections during the 90s to make sure Netanyahu didn't win. Doth thou thinketh his concubine wouldeth be of divers opinion? "Dead flies in the ointment of the apothocary causeth it to send forth a stinking savor" Ecc 10:1 It was obvious that Bush had major disagreements with the State Department. Colin Powell was always contradicting Bush on Israel policy. My perception was that the State Department would try something their way and when it failed Bush got to try something else. That is pure conjecture on my part but I've been paying close focused attention to this issue since 1990 But "if" the State Department is running this as I have guessed, then this has been a strategy all along and they only needed new players. There is definitely a seismic shift in the way Israel is being treated in public statements from this White House. Genesis 3:3 "....and the serpent was the most subtle beast of the field" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 27, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 27, 2009 but I can't prove a negative so it would be incumbent on you to show where these people are anti-Israel. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a running gator see obvious facts or give a substantive rebuttal. It honestly appears that you only want to inject strife into all discussions to uphold a reputation of being an eternal antagonist. You are arguing just for the sake of being devil's advocate If you honestly can't see that America is about to throw Israel under the bus, then you will see it soon enough....but it will be too late for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 In the public eye, the US appears to be a major supporter of Israel, but the truth is sadly, the US is really nothing but a paper ally. What I mean is that Israel has some strategic value for the United States in the region where both Russia and Iran are concerned. The "support" the US government gives Israel should not be confused with the unconditional love that many Christians in the US genuinely possess for Israel. Many in the congressional personal are very pro-Israel not because of any affection for the country or the people but because Israel is required to return nearly $2 Billion in foreign aid to the US in terms of weapons purchases. That means job security for factories in the business of making F-16s, C-130s, Apache helicopters, M-16s, and other weapons Israel purchases. So naturally, the most "pro-Israel" congressmen are those who hail from states whose constituency are employed by factories that are supplied by defense contracts. Going back as far as Henry Kissenger, the US State Department has had a decidedly negative view of Israel. When the Yom Kippur War was on and it appeared that Israel was going to be wiped out, Secretary of State Kissenger's advice to Nixon was "let the Jews bleed." Had it been up to Kissenger alone, the US would not have sent Israel one shiny bullet. Fortunately, Nixon saw it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted March 28, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,067 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 427 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2009 but I can't prove a negative so it would be incumbent on you to show where these people are anti-Israel. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a running gator see obvious facts or give a substantive rebuttal. It honestly appears that you only want to inject strife into all discussions to uphold a reputation of being an eternal antagonist. You are arguing just for the sake of being devil's advocate If you honestly can't see that America is about to throw Israel under the bus, then you will see it soon enough....but it will be too late for all of us. From just reading the whole thread to this point . . . it certainly does seem yod's perception here is not shared by him alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted March 28, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,067 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 427 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) I don Edited March 28, 2009 by BlindSeeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It depends on the situation. When my wife and 14 year old daughter have arguments/disagreements and are at total opposites of each other I can sit and talk to both of them and support both of them. what if you daughter one day said, "Mom doesn't deserve to breath. It is my life's amibition to drown her in the sea. I am, in fact, training all my children (even the babies!) to kill themselves if they will take mom with them" Would you still be so even handed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Secretary of State Kissenger's advice to Nixon was "let the Jews bleed." Had it been up to Kissenger alone, the US would not have sent Israel one shiny bullet. Fortunately, Nixon saw it differently. And that is another case where a Presidential Administration was in direct opposition to their own State Department Cabinet member. Carter was the one sent to the White House after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 this is the thing that bugged me the most about this thread and the tone of it. This is not something new to Obama like so many want to make it out to be. so this is your purpose in life now? Defending Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts