Obama dumps Netanyahu

[TWA]

My taxes are not going up....because I don't pay taxes. No income.

I see Israel differently than you do. But regardless of that, this is no way for a host to treat a world leader. Getting tough with action is one thing......"Fine, I am not going to eat dinner with you" is childish and petty, not tough.

What's next????? Is Obama going to take his ball and go home?

You do have a point there. I would expect our president to be a bit more gracious in his snubbery, lol. The article certainly made Obama out to be a bit of a brat, but remember that it was written by someone with a slant against him. I could have written the same article and made Obama look like a hero, and still kept everything perfectly factual. Words and language are powerful, but they are also pliable and easily manipulated to express a certain viewpoint. We don't know the real circumstances. Could be that Netanyahu was the real brat and Obama was just sick of his shit and acted the way anyone would act when a toddler throws a temper tantrum. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to eat with a brat either...

 

[Jiro]

Exactly, it's the pettiness of Obama. More like a petulant man-child.

ah it's pettiness if Obama shows some balls to him. it's traitorous if Obama bows too low to him.

comical......

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

It was the Jewish people struggle for two thousand years for their homeland called "Judea."

Um, not really...

Palestine Jews and Palestine Arabs were co-existing peacefully for centuries under the Ottoman Empire and Islamic Empire.

It wasn't until European Jews wanted to leave Europe, and I don't blame them, that crap started stirring up. But two wrongs doesn't make a right.

 

[TXgolfer]

You do have a point there. I would expect our president to be a bit more gracious in his snubbery, lol. The article certainly made Obama out to be a bit of a brat, but remember that it was written by someone with a slant against him. I could have written the same article and made Obama look like a hero, and still kept everything perfectly factual. Words and language are powerful, but they are also pliable and easily manipulated to express a certain viewpoint. We don't know the real circumstances. Could be that Netanyahu was the real brat and Obama was just sick of his shit and acted the way anyone would act when a toddler throws a temper tantrum. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to eat with a brat either...

True.....All I have read says the same....but who knows what you get from the media these days. I haven't forgotten the ESPN article.

 

[TWA]

Cowards? Like strapping on bombs of mentally retarded Muslims to get the job done?

Yep, cowardly like that. Cowardly like shooting stick-wielding children and razing the homes of uninvolved families. Cowardly like bombing hospitals with phosphorus bombs, which are outlawed under international rules of engagement.

I'm not defending the Palestinian militants, so don't try that spin bullshit with me. But lets face it, Israel is not the shining example of justified violence you're going for here, pal.

 

[Jiro]

Yep, cowardly like that. Cowardly like shooting stick-wielding children and razing the homes of uninvolved families. Cowardly like bombing hospitals with phosphorus bombs, which are outlawed under international rules of engagement.

I'm not defending the Palestinian militants, so don't try that spin bullshit with me. But lets face it, Israel is not the shining example of justified violence you're going for here, pal.

let us not forget about Rachel Corrie.... who was a 23 years old American peace activist. She was killed by Israeli bulldozer.

 

[TWA]

ah it's pettiness if obama shows some balls to him. It's traitorous if obama bows too low to him.

Comical......

ftw

 

[Secretblend]

Actually, it all started few generations after Abraham had two sons, Ishmael (Arabs) and Issac (Jews) have been fighting. Therefore, it has been much longer than 2000 years.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Actually, it all started few generations after Abraham had two sons, Ishmael (Arabs) and Issac (Jews) have been fighting. Therefore, it has been much longer than 2000 years.

Keep Biblical history out of the discussion since scholars dispute over the interpretation of the texts. Easier to go by anthropological history instead.

 

[kokonut]

Um, not really...

Palestine Jews and Palestine Arabs were co-existing peacefully for centuries under the Ottoman Empire and Islamic Empire.

It wasn't until European Jews wanted to leave Europe, and I don't blame them, that crap started stirring up. But two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Actually it was the Romans who came in and dispersed the Jewish people when they took control of their new land. And they changed the name to Philistine in the effort to eradicate the memory of "Eretz Israel" from history. Then we have the name "Jerusalem" which was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago, and Jewish people have lived there continuously for over 2,000 years. It's not like they left.

 

[Secretblend]

Keep Biblical history out of the discussion since scholars dispute over the interpretation of the texts. Easier to go by anthropological history instead.

You can believe what you want but I find that anthropological history is mistaken most of time cause man wants to believe what he wants the "history" to tell him.

I prefer to believe in the Bible and will go by that. So either you accept both as possible history or none at all.

 

[kokonut]

Yep, cowardly like that. Cowardly like shooting stick-wielding children and razing the homes of uninvolved families. Cowardly like bombing hospitals with phosphorus bombs, which are outlawed under international rules of engagement.

I'm not defending the Palestinian militants, so don't try that spin bullshit with me. But lets face it, Israel is not the shining example of justified violence you're going for here, pal.

Let's not get overly emotional here. Israel simply has the right to defend her country and her people.

 

[Foxrac]

Do you even read the link you provided?





I believe President Obama did a right thing to brush him off. We do not bend over for Israel and let them bulldoze Palestinians' homes and make bullshit zoning laws whenever they feel like.

So kokonut... what do you think of Israelis' unsympathetic indifferences in handling West Bank?

Yup, I feel so bad for Palestinians.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

You can believe what you want but I find that anthropological history is mistaken most of time cause man wants to believe what he wants the "history" to tell him.

I prefer to believe in the Bible and will go by that. So either you accept both as possible history or none at all.

Religious discussion is not allowed on AD.

 

[Foxrac]

You can believe what you want but I find that anthropological history is mistaken most of time cause man wants to believe what he wants the "history" to tell him.

I prefer to believe in the Bible and will go by that. So either you accept both as possible history or none at all.

Well, religious aren't equal nor same in around world so some people don't believe in bible for any reasons.

 

[Secretblend]

Discussion and telling what I believe is two different things. You can either ignore what I say and go on or discuss it. From my point of view your "history" can also be religion also.

 

[Jiro]

He'd rather hit up with popular dictators and Islamic despots. Rather obvious there.

But he'll bend over for Chavez, Castro, Ahmadenijad.....

let's see what the Truth-O-Meter will say after the facts below....

Obama and Chavez

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an "ignoramus" for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

"He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he's a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality," said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Chavez said Obama's comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

"When I saw Obama saying what he said, I put the decision back in the drawer; let's wait and see," Chavez said on his weekly television show, adding he had wanted to send a new ambassador to improve relations with the United States after the departure of George W. Bush as president.

In a January interview with Spanish-language U.S. network Univision, Obama said Chavez had hindered progress in Latin America, accusing him of exporting terrorist activities and supporting Colombian guerrillas.

"My, what ignorance; the real obstacle to development in Latin America has been the empire that you today preside over," said Chavez, who is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy.

In the 20th century the United States supported several armed movements and coups in Latin America. Chavez says Washington had a hand in a short-lived putsch against him in 2002, which was initially welcomed by U.S. officials.

Chavez and Obama will both attend the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago next month. It is not known whether they will meet.

Most of OPEC nation Venezuela's export income comes from oil it sells to the United States, but Chavez has built stronger ties with countries like China in an attempt to reduce dependence on his northern neighbor.

Chavez expelled its U.S. ambassador in September in a dispute over U.S. activities in his ally Bolivia, which also expelled its U.S. ambassador. Ecuador's left-wing President Rafael Correa this year kicked out a mid-ranking U.S. diplomat.

Obama and Castro

Let's get one thing straight: Fidel Castro doesn't think Barack Obama is the great socialist hope for America.

In fact, he writes, "Obama was born, educated, made policy, and succeeded in the imperial capitalist system of the United States. He doesn't wish to or would change the system," in a column published yesterday in Juventud Rebelde, a state-owned newspaper.

See, Obama isn't a socialist. You heard it from Mr. Socialist himself. It should also be noted that Castro has had no problem criticizing the president in the past.

That being said, Castro thinks the right-wingers will try to impede Obama at every turn simply because he's black. "I don't have the slightest doubt that the racist right will do everything possible to wear him down, blocking his program to get him out of the game one way or another, at the least political cost," he writes, according to a Reuters translation.

So, according to Castro, all of this "Obama is a socialist," "Obama is Hitler," and "Obama wants to kill your grandmother and Stephen Hawkings" isn't because Obama actually is a socialist or the second coming of Hitler or wants to murder Grandma Ester in her sleep. It's because he's black.

Ironically, Castro titles the column "Hopefully I'm Wrong!" And, well, Castro is wrong about a lot of things, but he could be right here. Of course, there are many, many critics whose problems with the prez have nothing to do with race, and Castro, never one to question his absolutes, doesn't note that, but there's no denying there are still some people who might be a bit uncomfortable with Obama's race.

Cue the comments. Of course, if Castro wrote a column about the sky being blue and we wrote, "Yes, indeed the sky is blue," we'd still get hateful comments.

Obama and Ahmadenijad

Ahmadinejad calls Obama meddler, likens him to Bush.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called the U.S. president inexperienced, compared him unfavorably to President George W. Bush and suggested he apologize for "interfering in Iran's affairs."

"Do you think that this kind of behavior is going to solve any of your problems? It will only make people think you are someone like Bush," the semiofficial Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"You are at the beginning of your way and you are gaining experience, and we do not wish the scandals of the Bush era to be repeated during your term of office," the Iranian leader said.

President Obama, who has been in office for five months, has been treading a careful line on Iran, which has seen two weeks of street demonstrations following a disputed presidential election there. Watch how U.S.-Iran relations got to this point

Pro-government security forces have cracked down on the protests, with officials saying 17 people have died. Unofficial reports suggest the number is much higher.

Official results gave Ahmadinejad a 2-to-1 victory over his nearest rival, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Moussavi. Moussavi says the results were rigged.

Obama has said Iranians must be free to demonstrate peacefully, and his administration Wednesday withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats around the world to attend U.S. embassy Fourth of July parties.

The extension of invitations last month was seen as a cautious outreach to Iran, which has not had diplomatic relations with Washington for 30 years.

Obama wrote secretly to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, before the election, Iranian sources confirmed Wednesday. See photos from post-election violence »

Obama said Tuesday that Iran's government must justify itself not in the eyes of the United States, but in the opinion of its own people.

"A sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves ... consider this election illegitimate," he said at a White House news conference.

"It is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and prosperity," he said. "We hope they take it." Timeline of election violence »

Ahmadinejad said Thursday that even 5- and 6-year-olds would not allow insults to the Iranian nation, telling Obama: "We hope that you will avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and somehow express your regret so that the Iranian nation can become aware of your regret. If there is real change, the Iranian nation will welcome it."

more - Obama dismisses Ahmadinejad apology request

Result

 

[kokonut]

Cuba, the same country that Michael Moore said it was country known for their excellent medical coverages?

Gotcha.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Discussion and telling what I believe is two different things. You can either ignore what I say and go on or discuss it. From my point of view your "history" can also be religion also.

*facepalms*

How can at least hundreds of empires be wrong?

It's know we know Jesus actually existed-- because the Greeks and Romans wrote about him. It's also how we know the Jews have be scattered around the globe because of the Roman invasions of the Near East.

We know the events surrounding Moses in the Exodus occured because the Egyptians have similar records. We know Noah's Ark could had been true because of Epic of Giglamesh and various Babylonian civilizations have similar accounts.

Ancient history requires cross-references between many authors, many civilizations and many sources to paint an accurate picture. The problem with Biblical history is, you're only relying on one source. Luckily, bits and pieces of it can be confirmed through other civilizations' record-keeping.

But because people argue whether or not someone's interpretation of a religion is right or wrong is the reason why AD disallows religious discussions because you're basically telling that person the core of their belief may not be right-- and that is very insulting.

 

[Secretblend]

*facepalms*

How can at least hundreds of empires be wrong?

It's know we know Jesus actually existed-- because the Greeks and Romans wrote about him.

We know the events surrounding Moses in the Exodus occured because the Egyptians have similar records. We know Noah's Ark could had been true because of Epic of Giglamesh, Babylonian civilizations have similar accounts.

Ancient history requires cross-references between many authors, many civilizations and many sources to paint an accurate picture. The problem with Biblical history is, you're only relying on one source. Luckily, bits and pieces of it can be confirmed through other civilizations' record-keeping.

Cause Man is involved and he is biased. Man can choose to see several different sides in everything. Since Man is not perfect, nothing that is man made is perfect.

Even history can be written with a slant 4000 years ago just like today.