@gets - I'm not offended by what you wrote and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. I get offended when people aren't civil and throw out insults. You haven't done that. You've been very civil in all of your posts. Wish more people could engage in these healthy and friendly debates and discussions the way you have. Like they say, I may not agree with everything you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. Trolls and jerks, on the other hand, that's a different story.

Personally, I think there might be some things you can educate us on, especially with your Haitian background. Americans only see Haiti as a dirt-poor and corrupt country, but I've read up on its history about how it got that way and I think a lot of people would be surprised.

On the Sanchez-Stewart situation, I didn't write that what he said on Stewart wasn't connected to his firing, but rather that it was the final straw in a series of things he said. I also think he forgot that his protector was Jewish, which put the lie to some of what he said.

Are Jews an oppressed minority? In the USA they are a religious minority and there is a lot of prejudice against them. Not enough prejudice that it prevents them from getting jobs, but enough that people call them insulting names, tell false stories about them, and sometimes vandalize their homes and places of worship. The 1986 Crown Heights Riot was an example of persecution. If that qualifies as oppression or not, I'll let you decide.

On Alice Walker, kind of surprised since so many academics and students these days are anti-Israel. But don't forget that Condoleeza Rice was disinvited from Rutgers University and Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Brandeis: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/po...concerns-n90141

responding to gets.... I don't think you are off base, we still have free speech. and I hope everybody realizes this, I myself have had an experience with being called anti-semtic.

I made the mistake of merely mentioning that I thought the holocaust numbers were wrong, I did not deny the holocaust, I just questioned the numbers.

this was when I was in college, I was almost run out of town. I think there is a lot of truth in your views.

and I am not now or never have been anti-Semitic. but one must be careful what one says concerning Israel. you could be hammered. [my opinion only.]

I doubt anyone here thinks you are anti-Semetic. At least I don't think so. Now, anti-Israel? Perhaps.

You talk about wanting to have an "honest discussion" about Israel but, from what I've read of your posts, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Your knee-jerk reaction is to call Netanyahu "arrogant," even though - if you read or watch it - there was absolutely nothing arrogant in his speech. In fact, he went overboard in an effort to be conciliatory and complimentary to the U.S., including Obama and the Democrats.

Also, in the past your main focus seems to have been how "Israel treats the Palestinians," as if there is some moral equivalence between the two. Only someone who is willfully blind or has an agenda would fail to see that, generally speaking, Israel has been the good party while the Palestinians (who have allowed themselves to be exploited and brainwashed by Arafat, Hamas, etc) have been the bad ones. And you can extend that out to the other Muslim countries that surround Israel. Look at how disfuncional they are. If they aren't kept under thumb by a strongman tyrant, it doesn't seem long before the radical Islamists take over, which we have seen in several countries now. Yet, for one reason or another, liberals (which you have to admit you are) love to kick Israel while ignoring the vastly greater issue of the basket-case Muslim world which is an ever-present danger to Israel, the U.S. and the rest of the West.

I have to say watching it I didn't really think what he said was a big deal



Just a funny cartoon I saw following the speech

@F1,
thanks. I think people should speak the truth as they see it.The people whose opinions I respect aren't always the ones I agree with it. It's the people who, say ,will speak their version of the truth about another group and who won't shy away from possibly negative issues about THEIR group. There's no shortage of people who have opinions about others but, I've noticed, on subjects that are sensitive to their group(s)..some are conspicuously absent from discussions.Cowards. I think those who disagree with me about this or other topics will note that I don't run from topics that might paint one of the groups I identify as in a bad light.
My favorite Seinfeld episode and clip(which I post here sometimes) is where Jerry is making anti-dentite jokes...and his date laughs and says "yeah, and don't let me get started about the Jews and the Blacks"



@Binnie,

thanks..I happen to think that the terms anti-Israel pro-Israel, anti Palestinian, pro-Palestinian do NOT apply in general to outsiders who just have an opinion. Those terms apply to people who have blood ties, political, financial, or religious ties to the conflict. We've heard those terms thrown around on political shows , so we repeat them but it's an oversimplification to think of regular people like that.
Having a personal opinion about an issue, a policy, or a current leader doesn't make one pro or anti (insert nationality). Thanks for the support.


@Ivy,

thanks, I have to go back and look over my posts but I think you might be confusing me with another member. I'm not concerned enough about Palestinians or the conflict to write about how "Israelis treat Palestinians" unless I was making some type of comparison. When people are living that close to each other and killing each other I have enough respect to understand how serious it is.and that I can't possibly know enough to make an informed comment.

You mean kind of like how any honest discussion of african american issues that doesn't comport with the typical PC stance gets you labeled as a racist and, likewise, prevents an honest discussion. And similarly, how any disagreement with Obama's policies and blatant disregard of the constitution to force his agenda on Americans results in the same label (and, in the case of Bob Menendez, gets you prosecuted)? No, not like that at all.

Have you not been watching CNN and MSNBC? Perhaps not (Surprisingly), because if you did, you would see that there is no shortage of Netanyahu and Israel bashing on either network.

Ivy,

He clearly didn't watch the speech and his opinion therefore has no merit. He's one step away from cook.

Unfortunately, in this day in age, a-lot of people get their news from twitter. I am sure he got it through a Sharpton and/or MSNBC tweet.

Making any trolling remark about a specific religion won't be tolerated here. Footreads, you really have to reel yourself in!

So far, most of this discussion has focused on comments on Israel and Jews. The reality is that Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East, and ultimately to the world:

The Middle Eastern nations fear Iran far more than Israel. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sure to follow, turning the world's most volatile and dangerous region into a nuclear-armed camp. Can you imagine what would happen if ISIS and/or Al Queida, and/or the Muslim Brotherhood were to overthrow a nuclear-armed regime, or capture its weapons?

Iran already has missiles that can hit all of the Middle East, a good part of Africa, and all of Southern Europe. The next generation of Iranian missiles could hit the US mainland.

The US position as recently as 2010 was to demand that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment infrastructure in return for lifting sanctions. Since then, Iran has vastly increased the number of centrifuges for uranium enrichmenbt. Now the Obama administration has backed off--willing to cede to Iran unranium-enrichment capabilities as long as Iran "promises" not to upgrade them to weapons-grade uranium--with a "sunset" after 10 years. Iran has steadfastly refused to accept UN inspectors, and when it has, to correct violations of previous agreements.

Obama has refused to release details of the current negotiations with Iran, and has said he will decree a settlement by executive order, bypassing Congress. All this for Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Netanyahu isn't the only one who should be concerned about the US position on Iran--all of us should be.

turnbull, but isn't iran helping the U.S. in trying to drive isis out of Iraq? why wouldn't the U.S. not want Iran's help in getting rid of isis?

Turnbull, you said it perfectly. It addresses every point.

Binnie, I'd still like to know what SPECIFIC things you believe Israel is doing wrong. You haven't answered that one.

On ISIS, helping to get rid of ISIS is one thing, letting them get nuclear weapons that they can use to destroy Israel and the United States is something else. Iran has promised to do both and continues to say that to this day!

I just happen to believe that Israel is the barrier to peace talks with the Palestinians, to them they are not doing wrong but to many [myself included] their is a belief that Israeli occupation is indeed a barrier to peace.

and talks had broken down recently[2014] over these same issues. even Israel has agreed to a two state solution.

as far as iran goes, how do you propose to have peace with iran, and deter their nuclear program?

Iran is fighting ISIS to protect Shia Muslims who currently run Iraq's weak government. They want to defend their border with Iraq and, ultimately, to govern Iraq through an ally like Hezbollah. There is no quid pro quo--i.e., Iran fights ISIS in return for us looking the other way while they get the Bomb.
[quote]as far as iran goes, how do you propose to have peace with iran, and deter their nuclear program? [\quote]

The economic sanctions imposed by the US and other countries had a serious effect on Iran's economy and were responsible for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Obama has eased up on important sanctions before Iran made any concessions about foregoing nuclear weapons. Those sanctions--and tougher ones as well--need to be in place until they do.

TB, sanctions are not going to compel Iran to do what many want Iran to do about its nuclear program. The application of sanctions, no matter how comprehensive or how dire their effects upon Iran's economy, can only be relatively brief. Unless such sanctions occasion a change in Iran's government, Iran can wait until the sanctions decrease or expire and then reengage their nuclear efforts years down the road.

What is never mentioned during any talk shows or news broadcasts is the inevitability of war with Iran if the West's non-belligerent remedies fail.

True. Regime change was/is one of the goals of sanctions.



Nobody wants war with Iran, starting with Israel. But if they get nuclear weapons, preventive military action may be inevitable. And if it comes to that, I'd bet it'd be led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey.

I've stayed out of this so far because it's getting heated, and because I've become too short-tempered when discussing religion and politics, especially online. But every word of this post is right on the fucking money.

Oh, and just to show that I'm not looking for brownie points: The American Left should be ashamed of themselves (as if they had any shame to begin with) for turning their backs on a voting block that has been overwhelmingly Democrat for the past century. Even now.

Although I 'd like to point out that "all Jews are Liberals" is overstating things in a big way. That's just another stereotype. But I guess at the end of the day, Obama doesn't give a shit about 2 percent of the population. I supported him, so I can say it: Fuck Obama. 2016 can't come soon enough, no matter who ends up in the White House. At least it won't be him.

Yeah but if those 7 million bucked the trend and voted Republican it would sway the election the other way.

Then I should clarify. He doesn't give a shit about two percent of the population now that he's in his second term, where he's showing his true colors (no racial pun intended).

TB, I'm not suggesting war only when Iran obtains nuclear weapons; I'm suggesting that once it's determined that sanctions are not working, then the only way to prevent Iran's obtaining such a weapon is war. While the sanctions so far applied have harmed Iran's economy, they haven't deterred Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Thus, there's every reason to attack Iran now.

Binnie, I'm just not understanding. You've said that you "feel" and that you "believe" that Israel is a hindrance to peace, but where's the evidence for this? Making an analogy, it's as if you said that you believe that John Gotti was the Boss of Bosses because you just "feel that way." There has to be a reason to believe things or you just don't like Israel because you've been influenced by the media or people you know by peer pressure.

As for Iran, maybe we can't have peace with them. Should we have been at peace with Nazi Germany? That doesn't mean I'm advocating for an active war, but it doesn't mean we can't fight them in other ways. War is always the final option.

Frankly after we took over Iraq we could have told Iran what we wanted them to do to avoid the same faith happening to them. That is how we should have used diplomacy.

If we had done that we would not be faced with our soldiers getting wounded and killed with weapons made in Iran.

Israel wants us to return to what we were doing diplomatically before we tried to deal with Iran. Under that regime no one can deal with them.

So there are only two things to do. Go back to trying to crush their economy or actually crush their nuclear capability by attacking it in every way we and Israel can do it.

If we do nothing then Israel will have to do it on their own. Actually I am for the economic solution. If Israel feels they can do it the other way alone let them I am for that as the second alternative.

My understanding is John Gotti is still considered the Boss of Bosses and a little fun fact he has such clout to this day during commission meetings they hold a seance to get his input.

Iran getting nuclear weapons and capacity is inevitable.I think what Obama with the other world leaders who are engaging in discussion with Iran are doing is part of a broader effort. I think you neutralize Iran by building bridges with the U.S. and the other P5 countries( and of course, weapons industry lobbies in said countries support the effort and stand to benefit.)

Listen, we all live here and are potential targets for hostile governments or terrorists groups so I agree that the administration should make efforts to protect security, but I'm not convinced that disengaging with Iran over this issue does that.

I don't think this is appeasement like Chamberlain and Hitler...which I've heard a few times. You're dealing with a very volatile area of the world and the chest beating tough guy stance doesn't work in every situation. By keeping a dialogue open with Iran, you are potentially weakening the recruiting/selling points that the war mongerers and terrorists are using to manipulate people to follow them.

This is so dang simple. Either the US applies dire sanctions that will work or won't work, or the US attacks Iran. It's that simple.

Sanctions yes, let Israel attack them

im glad we agree that war is the last option, a poster just posted his solution, let Israel attack Iran,

I sure don't see that as a solution, all hell would break loose in the region at that option, don't you agree?

Sanctions yes, let Israel attack them [/quote

Israel attacking Iran is the worst possible solution, that action could start ww3. don't forget china. and Russia both have extensive business interests in Iran.

to my mind bad solution.

and which way would they go once the actual fighting starts, does anyone actually know?

All hell will break loose, hasn't it already?

We attack Iraq take out Sadam-they are currently at war with Isis
We help take out Gaddafi- Our embassy is attacked and Isis has training grounds in Libya, I think the town is Derna
We supply Syrian "rebels" with weapons- Isis fights for Assad

The US presence and out attempt at nation building in the Middle East hasn't been exactly how we planned it, starting a war with Iran will just do the same.