U.S. House passes war pact with Israel (H.R. 4133)

[mrjarrell]

Israel has relatively lax immigration laws for people who want live there. If you truly want to defend Israel then convert and move. Don't pick other peoples pockets to support your agenda.

 

[thebishopp]

I don't know if you've paid much attention to the situation between the Islamics and the Jews, but except for Egypt under Hosni Mubarek, NONE of Israel's neighbors have acknowledged the Israelis' right to exist. Despite 30 years of peace talks under which Israel has given up about 80% of the land it won by conquest (after being attacked first) and has been willing to make tremendous concessions to the Palestinians, the Islamics have time and again refused to make peace. This goes 'way beyond 'squabbling family'. So I go back to my original comment: should we support the only truly democratic government in the Middle East, or should we suck up to the rest of the governments who hate us and our way of life?

Again you speak of the long long long on going war between the Jews and the Islamics.

As far as "conquering" goes... that was kind of how nations expanded their borders not to mention coming into existence at all. Now somewhere along the way we decided that "conquering" was bad - probably by people/governments that didn't want to be "conquered" in turn after already "conquering" someone else. Kind of like if I were to steal your house then making it illegal for you to steal that house back from me.

As far as "truly" democratic... personally I support the Republic method of government. I was never a fan of "mob rule" which is what a "truly democratic government" is. Also Israel isn't exactly "lily" white in it's dealings with it's neighbor. For example it's involvement with us and the British in the coup of 1953 of the democratically elected iranian prime minister to a government that relied heavily upon U.S. to support it until that government was itself overthrown in 79. (here's a good read: Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran )

Now we shouldn't be "sucking up" to anyone (that includes the "non-muslim" nations as well) but we shouldn't be getting involved in their business to the extend we have been.

 

[Lex Concord]

WTF is the point of a Constitution and codified law if that's how you think?

Is your mind so trapped in the box of the status quo that you think enabling freedom from the diktats of previous iterations of "our" national government is necessarily mutually exclusive from the Constitution and the concept of a rule of law?

I find your lack of faith in the concepts of liberty disturbing

Seriously. A constitutional amendment requiring that all laws, executive orders, treaties, and regulations be "re-ratified" by a super-majority of congress (re-enacted by the sitting president, re-ratified by the Senate, etc.) (75% preferred, 2/3 would be acceptable) after x years (x being less than a generation, maybe 10) would easily jibe with both the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and would do quite a bit to free "we the people" (generation x) from the missteps of "we the people" (generations x -1 => x - (n+1)).

It wouldn't be easy to get introduced, let alone ratified, and it would need to be carfully crafted such that those lazy bastiges on the hill couldn't simply pass a law stating "we hereby re-enact the entirety of U.S. Code".

That said, were it so ratified, it would be very difficult for "we" the people to inadvertantly screw our kids and grandkids who will eventually be "we" the people.

Edit:

We could call it the Legitimate EXtrication from the Continuous Onslaught of Nincompoopery of Congresses Onerous Regulations and Diktats (LEX CONCORD) Amendment.

The name is a work in progress.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is your mind so trapped in the box of the status quo that you think enabling freedom from the diktats of previous iterations of "our" national government is necessarily mutually exclusive from the Constitution and the concept of a rule of law?

I find your lack of faith in the concepts of liberty disturbing

Seriously. A constitutional amendment requiring that all laws, executive orders, treaties, and regulations be "re-ratified" by a super-majority of congress (re-enacted by the sitting president, re-ratified by the Senate, etc.) (75% preferred, 2/3 would be acceptable) after x years (x being less than a generation, maybe 10) would easily jibe with both the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and would do quite a bit to free "we the people" (generation x) from the missteps of "we the people" (generations x -1 => x - (n+1)).

It wouldn't be easy to get introduced, let alone ratified, and it would need to be carfully crafted such that those lazy bastiges on the hill couldn't simply pass a law stating "we hereby re-enact the entirety of U.S. Code".

That said, were it so ratified, it would be very difficult for "we" the people to inadvertantly screw our kids and grandkids who will eventually be "we" the people.

Edit:

We could call it the Legitimate EXtrication from the Continuous Onslaught of Nincompoopery of Congresses Onerous Regulations and Diktats (LEX CONCORD) Amendment.

The name is a work in progress.

You need a way to work "federal bureaucracy" into your acronym, somehow.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Again you speak of the long long long on going war between the Jews and the Islamics.

As far as "conquering" goes... that was kind of how nations expanded their borders not to mention coming into existence at all. Now somewhere along the way we decided that "conquering" was bad - probably by people/governments that didn't want to be "conquered" in turn after already "conquering" someone else. Kind of like if I were to steal your house then making it illegal for you to steal that house back from me.

As far as "truly" democratic... personally I support the Republic method of government. I was never a fan of "mob rule" which is what a "truly democratic government" is. Also Israel isn't exactly "lily" white in it's dealings with it's neighbor. For example it's involvement with us and the British in the coup of 1953 of the democratically elected iranian prime minister to a government that relied heavily upon U.S. to support it until that government was itself overthrown in 79. (here's a good read: Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran )

Now we shouldn't be "sucking up" to anyone (that includes the "non-muslim" nations as well) but we shouldn't be getting involved in their business to the extend we have been.

You're certainly welcome to be pendantic about the differences between "democracy" and "republic", so let me re-state: Israel is the only nation in the Middle East which has truly representative government - unless you count Turkey, which is becoming more theocratic, or Iraq, which hasn't really settled into its representative government yet - and Israel is a long-time ally of the US. I'm in favor of continuing to support our long-term allies throughout the world because you never know when you're going to need a friend, and even the smallest friends can sometimes lend a hand in a big way.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You're certainly welcome to be pendantic about the differences between "democracy" and "republic", so let me re-state: Israel is the only nation in the Middle East which has truly representative government - unless you count Turkey, which is becoming more theocratic, or Iraq, which hasn't really settled into its representative government yet - and Israel is a long-time ally of the US. I'm in favor of continuing to support our long-term allies throughout the world because you never know when you're going to need a friend, and even the smallest friends can sometimes lend a hand in a big way.

I would also reiterate that much of Israel's present need exists on account of our insistence on frankly stupid compromises with hostile neighbors who suffered the consequences of picking a fight and losing. Without our 'help' Israel would have more easily defensible borders and much more domestic revenue.

 

[thebishopp]

You're certainly welcome to be pendantic about the differences between "democracy" and "republic", so let me re-state: Israel is the only nation in the Middle East which has truly representative government - unless you count Turkey, which is becoming more theocratic, or Iraq, which hasn't really settled into its representative government yet - and Israel is a long-time ally of the US. I'm in favor of continuing to support our long-term allies throughout the world because you never know when you're going to need a friend, and even the smallest friends can sometimes lend a hand in a big way.

I don't think I am being pedantic at all concerning the HUGE difference between a "truly democratic government" and a "republic". In fact our founders found there to be a rather important difference and actually spoke against democracy. I would hope anyone who actually cares about our Constitution would find the difference important as well.

"Allies" are all well and good until they get us into loads of problems on a consistent basis. Besides it would seem Iran used to have a democratically elected prime minister until that little incident in 53.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think I am being pedantic at all concerning the HUGE difference between a "truly democratic government" and a "republic". In fact our founders found there to be a rather important difference and actually spoke against democracy. I would hope anyone who actually cares about our Constitution would find the difference important as well.

"Allies" are all well and good until they get us into loads of problems on a consistent basis. Besides it would seem Iran used to have a democratically elected prime minister until that little incident in 53.

You are correct, I COULD have said "truly representative government" which would have been equally as correct - and might not have drawn your nitpicky fire.

I'm not familiar with the lengthy history of representative government in Persia, nor of the way in which the previous Shah, left power to be replaced by the democratically elected prime minister. I suspect it's like the lengthy democratic history of Egypt and Syria and Iraq, but I could be mistaken.

 

[thebishopp]

You are correct, I COULD have said "truly representative government" which would have been equally as correct - and might not have drawn your nitpicky fire.

I'm not familiar with the lengthy history of representative government in Persia, nor of the way in which the previous Shah, left power to be replaced by the democratically elected prime minister. I suspect it's like the lengthy democratic history of Egypt and Syria and Iraq, but I could be mistaken.

Like I said. The difference between a democracy and a republic is pretty big. It is far from being "nitpicky" to point that out, you see the meaning of "words" are important.

As to Iran.

In 51 the Iranian Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators elected Dr. Mosaddeq as prime minister. Up until that point Britain controlled Iran's oil industry and they weren't too happy about losing that control. They threatened sanctions and in 52 they initiated the plot to overthrow Mosaddeq and sought our assistance.

The Truman administration rejected the plan but the Eisenhower administration gave it the go ahead.

Needless to say it, as well as the subsequent oppressive rule of the U.S. supported Shah, generated quite a bit of anti-american hatred.

(Interesting note: The coup in 53 was (supposedly) the CIAs first successful overthrow of another government, followed by the the Guatemala coup in 54 and then that mess we call the bay of pigs in 61.)

The U.S. supported Shah was finally overthrown in 79 in the Iranian revolution.

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright actually made a statement about the coup's pivotal role in the in our rather negative relations with Iran.

She said "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons," "But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Some people just have a problem with "letting go" ... though I wonder what we Americans would do if the same thing had been done to us by another country. I dare say we would be sounding the war trumpets and wanting some retribution.

Here is a good link if you care to get an idea of what happened: CNN Transcript - CNN Insight: U.S. Comes Clean About The Coup In Iran - April 19, 2000

The point of all this is we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries as it has caused us more problems than it has been worth, at least for us, the "common people" of the United States. I'm sure it has been very profitable for the politicians and various other businesses.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thanks for the cites and I agree, words are important. We're going to have to agree to disagree on Israel and our other long-term allies, though.

 

[thebishopp]

Thanks for the cites and I agree, words are important. We're going to have to agree to disagree on Israel and our other long-term allies, though.

No problem... and that is one of the good things about living in the U.S. - we can agree to disagree without having to kill each other - most times anyway

 

[caverjamie]

If Israel becomes part of NATO, which is clearly Congress’s intent, the U.S. and other members will be obligated to come to the aid of a nation that is expanding its borders and is currently engaged in hostilities with three of its neighbors.

It's a minor nitpick, but that statement is not true. Israel hasn't expanded their borders for quite a while. Since when, 1967 I think? In fact their borders have contracted. Since the 1973 war they left the Sinai peninsula and gaza strip.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's a minor nitpick, but that statement is not true. Israel hasn't expanded their borders for quite a while. Since when, 1967 I think? In fact their borders have contracted. Since the 1973 war they left the Sinai peninsula and gaza strip.

Not true, at all. They've been expanding, via their settlements, into the Palestinian West Bank for years. They deliberately built their wall, (and are still building it) to carve out pieces of territory that they want. They are still expanding their borders, all at the expense of the people of the West Bank.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not true, at all. They've been expanding, via their settlements, into the Palestinian West Bank for years. They deliberately built their wall, (and are still building it) to carve out pieces of territory that they want. They are still expanding their borders, all at the expense of the people of the West Bank.

What is your opinion of the status of territory won in a war? Is it subject to annexation and subsequent disposal? It's clear the Israelis unilaterally ceded territory won during the 1967 Mideast war against them back to the Palestinians in return for promises of peace by the Palestinians - which they immediately repudiated by continuing to attack Israeli territory from the newly ceded areas. It's very clear that the ultimate goal of the Palestinians and the other terror groups which control large sections of Palestinian territory - that is Hamas and Hezbollah - have no intentions of honoring any peace agreements. The Israelis have bent over backwards for a long time to create a peace between themselves and the other nations surrounding them, apparently you are unable to see that other than as "expanding their borders". "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

 

[MMRUSH]

I gotta say Im going with Blackhawk2001 On this one! Dont worry buddy they attack my views too.

 

[caverjamie]

Not true, at all. They've been expanding, via their settlements, into the Palestinian West Bank for years. They deliberately built their wall, (and are still building it) to carve out pieces of territory that they want. They are still expanding their borders, all at the expense of the people of the West Bank.

I didn't consider settlements in West Bank as expanding borders - they "acquired" the West Bank in the 1967 six day war, along with Golan Heights, Gaza strip, and Sinai peninsula. They gave back the latter two. Who is to say they have any obligation to give back the first two?

In 1947, the jewish agency accepted the partition plan that the UN came up with to divide the land, but the arab committee rejected it and civil war broke out. You end up with the 1948 green line. Seems to me the Arabs are to blame for losing that land...they didn't want to share then, and they don't want to share now. Hence the creation of the PLO in 1964...three years before the six day war occurred. PLO attacks from the west bank and the closing of the straits of tiran are considered to be the causes of the six day war as I understand it. Isn't it interesting that the organization created to liberate Palestine is at least partially responsible for losing even more of their land.

I ought to avoid the political discussion forum - they say not to discuss religion and politics but it's so hard not to sometimes...

 

[greyhound47]

I didn't consider settlements in West Bank as expanding borders - they "acquired" the West Bank in the 1967 six day war, along with Golan Heights, Gaza strip, and Sinai peninsula. They gave back the latter two. Who is to say they have any obligation to give back the first two?

In 1947, the jewish agency accepted the partition plan that the UN came up with to divide the land, but the arab committee rejected it and civil war broke out. You end up with the 1948 green line. Seems to me the Arabs are to blame for losing that land...they didn't want to share then, and they don't want to share now. Hence the creation of the PLO in 1964...three years before the six day war occurred. PLO attacks from the west bank and the closing of the straits of tiran are considered to be the causes of the six day war as I understand it. Isn't it interesting that the organization created to liberate Palestine is at least partially responsible for losing even more of their land.

I ought to avoid the political discussion forum - they say not to discuss religion and politics but it's so hard not to sometimes...

Way too many facts here. It is easier to just hate Jews and pretend everything is their fault. If we turned our backs on Isreal they would be attacked from all sides immediately.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What is your opinion of the status of territory won in a war? Is it subject to annexation and subsequent disposal? It's clear the Israelis unilaterally ceded territory won during the 1967 Mideast war against them back to the Palestinians in return for promises of peace by the Palestinians - which they immediately repudiated by continuing to attack Israeli territory from the newly ceded areas. It's very clear that the ultimate goal of the Palestinians and the other terror groups which control large sections of Palestinian territory - that is Hamas and Hezbollah - have no intentions of honoring any peace agreements. The Israelis have bent over backwards for a long time to create a peace between themselves and the other nations surrounding them, apparently you are unable to see that other than as "expanding their borders". "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Agreed. The Palestinians have consistently proven that there are such things as peaceful Palestinians. They are commonly known as corpses.

 

[Project972]

I love it. More things tokeep the kiddies busy. I wouldn't wan t them getting bored. semper Fi