Palestinian Statehood?

[R68 Subway Car]

http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-seek-full-u-n-membership-abbas-153350813.html

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Oh great, now I get the see the maniacs yelling and screaming in Union Square about statehood. They should really carry that nonsense off of American soil. Ever since we got involved and sided w/Israel it has been nothing but a headache. The two sides can't co-exist together, which is even more funny, because if you removed their religious attire, many of them have the same features and look alike in terms of swarthy features and so on, so you couldn't tell who was Israeli and who was Palestinian.

[Shortline Bus]

Oh great, now I get the see the maniacs yelling and screaming in Union Square about statehood. B) They should really carry that nonsense off of American soil. Ever since we got involved and sided w/Israel it has been nothing but a headache. The two sides can't co-exist together, which is even more funny, because if you removed their religious attire, many of them have the same features and look alike in terms of swarthy features and so on, so you couldn't tell who was Israeli and who was Palestinian. B)

 

 

IMO if we in the western world including the US had given lots of money to the Palestinians when the modern nation of Israel was created, at end of World War 2, it would have gone a long way in preventing the wackos like Al Queda, Hammas and going back 30 years the current mess in Iran.

Garbaldi if you read the history books, the only reason the US and then President Truman supported the Israel state was to prevent another holocaust as there was no place in Europe to create a 'new' Jewish country.

 

Money talks and BS walks. A huge cause of the Israel-Palestian is that most in most Israel are living in US/Western-world high living. While in parts of say Gaza, many are living in some of the poorest conditions in the world.

 

Truth is both the Jewish and Palestinians should be 'sharing the land' which if you a believer is the world's heartland of the Islam, Jewish and Christian faiths.

 

As long as there is conflict and fighting in the middle east, there will never

be 'world peace.'

[SubwayGuy]

What we should simply do is end ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign nations all at once. Pull out of the useless UN, and return to diplomacy by dealing with nations individually. We'll still have NATO anyway. Then stop supporting Israel, stop trying to mediate Palestine, and let those two peoples kill each other until THEY are sick of it, at which point they will voluntarily negotiate with each other, and work something else out without us indirectly telling them what to do through the media.

 

Then a whole generation of poor arab kids taught in the phony madrasas the terrorists use to recruit, with not a lot to do, won't have a reason to hate America and want to grow up and destroy us anymore. And then we can think about reducing the astronomical and stupid defense budget we have to help our own citizens and improve living conditions here.

[Grand Concourse]

And to harp on how useless the UN is, they should move that joke of an organization elsewhere to Paris or someplace and spare us the headaches when those so called ambassadors arrives by holding up traffic via reroutes. And to add to it, the splurge on tax payer $ for expensive hotels/security and various stuff [prostitutes etc.] THe UN would be better used if all the bums in the subway were rounded up and placed there. Rope off the building and keep them off the streets.

[R68 Subway Car]

What we should simply do is end ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign nations all at once. Pull out of the useless UN, and return to diplomacy by dealing with nations individually. We'll still have NATO anyway. Then stop supporting Israel, stop trying to mediate Palestine, and let those two peoples kill each other until THEY are sick of it, at which point they will voluntarily negotiate with each other, and work something else out without us indirectly telling them what to do through the media.

 

Then a whole generation of poor arab kids taught in the phony madrasas the terrorists use to recruit, with not a lot to do, won't have a reason to hate America and want to grow up and destroy us anymore. And then we can think about reducing the astronomical and stupid defense budget we have to help our own citizens and improve living conditions here.

You are making tons of sense. We should pull out of that stupid organization once and for all because all it has ever done is attacked liberty. We gotta focus on our own business. These mofos will always hate each other (and I am pro-Israeli).

[SubwayGuy]

And to harp on how useless the UN is, they should move that joke of an organization elsewhere to Paris or someplace and spare us the headaches when those so called ambassadors arrives by holding up traffic via reroutes. And to add to it, the splurge on tax payer $ for expensive hotels/security and various stuff [prostitutes etc.] THe UN would be better used if all the bums in the subway were rounded up and placed there. Rope off the building and keep them off the streets.

 

NATO is an organization for joint defense and allegiance, essentially.

 

The UN is a poorly crafted "think tank" that occasionally issues sanctions which are not enforced with any teeth, and allows membership to nations that absolutely should not belong.

 

Like many of the things that Woodrow Wilson created during his presidency - like the Federal Reserve Act - the UN (since it is the successor to Wilson's original League of Nations, I'm assigning it to him) has been a failure.

[R68 Subway Car]

NATO is an organization for joint defense and allegiance, essentially.

 

The UN is a poorly crafted "think tank" that occasionally issues sanctions which are not enforced with any teeth, and allows membership to nations that absolutely should not belong.

 

Like many of the things that Woodrow Wilson created during his presidency - like the Federal Reserve Act - the UN (since it is the successor to Wilson's original League of Nations, I'm assigning it to him) has been a failure.

Great post!

[Shortline Bus]

I agree to a point Subway Guy. The world is so interconnected now, we cant't go back to the isolation era of the late 1800's and early years of the 20th Century. (Pre World War I and II)

 

However we got major problems at home. Unless threnated with a miltary action or a country that harbors 'terrorists' we in the US should 'butt out' of the world's hot spots. Any cases of say for instance genocide in 3rd world nations, should be done in a multi nation agency like NATO. Just too bad the military i.e defense contractors, etc has so much money invested in the US military, it doubtful our country will ever scale down.

 

 

 

What we should simply do is end ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign nations all at once. Pull out of the useless UN, and return to diplomacy by dealing with nations individually. We'll still have NATO anyway. Then stop supporting Israel, stop trying to mediate Palestine, and let those two peoples kill each other until THEY are sick of it, at which point they will voluntarily negotiate with each other, and work something else out without us indirectly telling them what to do through the media.

 

Then a whole generation of poor arab kids taught in the phony madrasas the terrorists use to recruit, with not a lot to do, won't have a reason to hate America and want to grow up and destroy us anymore. And then we can think about reducing the astronomical and stupid defense budget we have to help our own citizens and improve living conditions here.

[Grand Concourse]

NATO is an organization for joint defense and allegiance, essentially.

 

The UN is a poorly crafted "think tank" that occasionally issues sanctions which are not enforced with any teeth, and allows membership to nations that absolutely should not belong.

 

Like many of the things that Woodrow Wilson created during his presidency - like the Federal Reserve Act - the UN (since it is the successor to Wilson's original League of Nations, I'm assigning it to him) has been a failure.

 

And the whole one nation=1 vote shit makes it even more a joke. Why should the US be the same as some small African country? With so many African/mid east nations, it's no wonder they can all gang up on the US and bleed us dry. Now if it was based on how much each nation funds that shit hole that is the UN... IE: US pays 22-25%, then they should get 22-25% of the votes. IF the other countries don't like it they can start their own 'clubs'.

[QM1to6Ave]

What we should simply do is end ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign nations all at once. Pull out of the useless UN, and return to diplomacy by dealing with nations individually. We'll still have NATO anyway. Then stop supporting Israel, stop trying to mediate Palestine, and let those two peoples kill each other until THEY are sick of it, at which point they will voluntarily negotiate with each other, and work something else out without us indirectly telling them what to do through the

 

We can't just stop all foreign aid. How well could we sell goods to other countries when we have suddenly stopped giving them aid? Cutting aid might be a nice temporary solution, but it is not a viable option for minting and growing our position on the world stage

[SubwayGuy]

I agree to a point Subway Guy. The world is so interconnected now, we cant't go back to the isolation era of the late 1800's and early years of the 20th Century. (Pre World War I and II)

 

However we got major problems at home. Unless threnated with a miltary action or a country that harbors 'terrorists' we in the US should 'butt out' of the world's hot spots. Any cases of say for instance genocide in 3rd world nations, should be done in a multi nation agency like NATO. Just too bad the military i.e defense contractors, etc has so much money invested in the US military, it doubtful our country will ever scale down.

 

I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm advocating diplomacy through direct dealing rather than through a bullshit organization. We are interconnected, but most of those countries we are most interconnected with are part of NATO. This is not all but a sample.

 

-United Kingdom

-Canada

-France

-Belgium

-Germany

-Spain

-Denmark

-Italy

-Luxembourg

-Netherlands

-Portugal

-Hungary

-Czech Republic

-Slovakia

-Slovenia

-Croatia

-Norway

 

The only one we deal with a lot in a friendly way that's not in here are the Swiss, Sweden, and to a lesser extent Finland. THESE are our allies...not the Chinese, not the Mexicans, not middle easterners (BTW, Israel is not part of NATO!!!). They are all worthy trade partners and collectively there is no reason these countries and the US cannot get together and work out something that results in low unemployment and a good standard of living. But in the name of profiteering by corporate executives and wealthy shareholders, politicians continue to allow them to sell out to the lowest bidder...even if those nations are NOT our friends, dragging the American standard of living down and devaluing the American currency slowly. And the same thing is slowly happening to Europe because of the global influence of the banks and those who set monetary policy. Which is pathetic and unacceptable.

 

And the whole one nation=1 vote shit makes it even more a joke. Why should the US be the same as some small African country? With so many African/mid east nations, it's no wonder they can all gang up on the US and bleed us dry. Now if it was based on how much each nation funds that shit hole that is the UN... IE: US pays 22-25%, then they should get 22-25% of the votes. IF the other countries don't like it they can start their own 'clubs'.

 

Yet another reason why the UN is a joke. The US actually adheres to its "rules" which put it at a distinct disadvantage.

[SubwayGuy]

We can't just stop all foreign aid. How well could we sell goods to other countries when we have suddenly stopped giving them aid? Cutting aid might be a nice temporary solution, but it is not a viable option for minting and growing our position on the world stage

 

So let me get this straight: by your logic, our solution to our economic weakness is to encourage exports by loaning money to foreign governments, which may or may not do what they're supposed to with the money since there is ZERO accountability, so that their citizens and companies import what few goods are still made in America?

 

Aid is not debt, it does not have to be paid back. In essence, this is the government mandating that the taxpayer pay a portion of the cost of goods sold overseas, based on the assumption it will reduce unemployment.

 

I have major problems with a planned economy where the government manipulates supply and demand. I hate libertarians, but one of the things they have right is you can't screw with supply and demand (which is what government and big business try to do - like China in the article!) But, to use your logic, if the goal is to create demand, wouldn't that be better spent by perhaps giving aid directly to American taxpayers in a flexible spending account that had to be used, with a "buy American" provision attached?

 

I'm not advocating it as a solution, I just don't see how propping up a foreign demand base benefits America in any way in the long run. Particularly when America continues to import at such an unreasonable rate.

 

Aid to NATO countries for joint defense or agreed upon measures is one thing, just like emergency/disaster aid is another. But what amounts to an economic stimulus of a foreign buyer's market is something COMPLETELY different. Just like what amounts to a US government stimulus to a foreign government is equally unacceptable.

[QM1to6Ave]

So let me get this straight: by your logic, our solution to our economic weakness is to encourage exports by loaning money to foreign governments, which may or may not do what they're supposed to with the money since there is ZERO accountability, so that their citizens and companies import what few goods are still made in America?

 

Aid is not debt, it does not have to be paid back. In essence, this is the government mandating that the taxpayer pay a portion of the cost of goods sold overseas, based on the assumption it will reduce unemployment.

 

I have major problems with a planned economy where the government manipulates supply and demand. I hate libertarians, but one of the things they have right is you can't screw with supply and demand (which is what government and big business try to do - like China in the article!) But, to use your logic, if the goal is to create demand, wouldn't that be better spent by perhaps giving aid directly to American taxpayers in a flexible spending account that had to be used, with a "buy American" provision attached?

 

I'm not advocating it as a solution, I just don't see how propping up a foreign demand base benefits America in any way in the long run. Particularly when America continues to import at such an unreasonable rate.

 

Aid to NATO countries for joint defense or agreed upon measures is one thing, just like emergency/disaster aid is another. But what amounts to an economic stimulus of a foreign buyer's market is something COMPLETELY different. Just like what amounts to a US government stimulus to a foreign government is equally unacceptable.

 

I'm not saying this is the most logical solution. But the reality is that there is a large expectation for the U.S. to continue giving money to other countries. Smart or not, that is reality. The fact that we import way too much is a separate issue that we must address. But it just is not practical to say we will cut off almost all foreign aid, regardless of where that money actually goes and what we directly get in return for it.

[SubwayGuy]

Expectations are made to be let down. We are not the world's white knight. It's time for some of these countries to start taking care of their own people, or suffer the fate that comes when their people rise up in a bloody rebellion and destroy their captors, as has happen in many oppressive nations since the 20th century began.

 

It is not our place to do them charity. The American government exists SOLELY for the American people, BY the American people. Any international actions it does, are to be done for the safety and improvement in quality of life for the American people (which is why something like NATO can be useful - shared defense - while the UN remains useless - big international circle jerk).

 

The American government owes no loyalty to anyone or anything except the American people who grant it the right of governance over our land. And our very own Declaration of Independence declares that should government FAIL this task, as it has repeatedly for the last 35 years...the American people have not the right but the DUTY to overthrow such corrupt government and institute fair government BY AND FOR the people in its place.

 

This is the charter under which the US government legally operates and anything less is unacceptable. Foreign aid with no benefit to Americans, and foreign aid when direct aid to Americans is preferred, are luxuries for an American government in time of surplus. Not requirements for a government that is broke in a nation that is slowly falling apart. The continued insistence on the latter is entirely unacceptable on every conceivable level.