Benjamin Netanyahu for US President

Post Reply New Topic

If it were possible for a foreigner to be the president of the United States, I think I'd vote for Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel. Since most of the US constitution is ignored anyway, I think the part about having to be a natural born US citizen should be ignored also and I'd vote for the PM of Israel over most candidates the republicrats toss into the electoral college almost any day.

Goy Vey

Netanyahu is a joke and so are the Republicans that bowed at his feet, that man wants US children to die for Israel. He actually tried to convince us that fighting ISIS shouldn't be a priority because they're fighting against Iran. Lets hope Israel tosses him out in their coming election.

It is now a dead race between Likud and the Zionist Union after Netanyahu's speech, which gave his party a much needed boost ahead of the Israeli election.

I suppose when you come from a country of settler-colonialists it only makes sense to stand with other settler colonialists. Amirite?

We witness exactly the same flavour of Israel ass licking here in the planter descendant controlled parts of Ulster.

This is a signpost somewhere in Belfast.

How are you Iamaparakeet?

Netanyahu offers no solutions only status quo. I think he would be a pretty disastrous president. He is not universal popular in Israel either.

I think having Netanyahu as president would be as bad as having Abbas as president. Their whole careers are based on their entrenched positions.

In fact Israeli politics is quite different from US, so it would adapt quite badly to your founding principles.

The rational thing to do, and even christian to to do, would be to create that incentive that is lacking an withdraw all foreign envoys and mediator that are enabling not helping. Then tell the sides in no uncertain terms they must meet regularly or they will both receive sanctions. They must come up with their own solutions. You don't want your brothers and sisters to be neurotic, so you don't nurture that behaviour or enable it.

Any foreign policy has to be balanced an represent that interest of the country of origin, if you allow other countries or private interest groups influence foreign policy over citizens interests that is a corruption of the duty of government.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 07 Mar 2015, 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

In fairness you do come from a petty awful part of Belfast, but the republican equivalents are no better. I can kind of understand why you would react so strongly to avert to it.

Still for your years, probably time you balanced your views somewhat, be more pragmatic.

Sure, just for the outcry it would cause.

So outcry is more important then the principles your country was founded on? Unless is of course they are principles you care about.

Forget about partly lines for a second, use some common sense and research it.

The reality before 1979 most in the US had barely even heard of Iran. Except the US and British government who are responsible for the Ayatollahs coming to power. I'm not for blaming all the issues on the world on the west (in fact I'm vehemently against it), but in this case the history is real, and it happened not that long ago, and is not in historical dispute. The US ad UK, conspired to overthrow a democratic elected leader, and reinstated the rule of the shah. This had nothing to do with "spreading democracy". The revolution in Iran was inevitable. Then the US supported Saddam Husein in a war with Iran, which cause mass causalities on the Iranian side.

The US and Britain not facing up to it role in the Ayatollahs coming to power is part of the problem. The Middle East is full of nutjob states, drawn up on very sectarian lies. That means the likes of Saudi Arabia (which is as bad as Iran, or arguably worse), needs to balanced out. This is not about kowtowing, that is what we are doing already, this is about giving neither the limelight, but trading with both.

Iran is not North Korea. It is not free, but politics is far more complex, with lot of different levels, there are pleanty of sensible people I have met them. It actually makes sense to reduce sanction now, becuase you would only be easing them to the level there were be previously. This has nothing to do with nuclear sanction which would remain.

North Korea on the other hand their whole economy is based on nuclear extortion. They don't like being ignored, becuase they are supposed to be a war state, so the have to live up to that image, otherwise nobody would give a s**t. Though China is getting fed up with them, and if the piss them off enough I'd expect them to be trounced.

/\ You read WAAAY to much into my post.

I didn't...I get it, you want to wind them up, troll them a little becuase it is all sport. But I'm actually asking you to consider you position outside of party politics. Think about the subject tactically and practically.

/\ Wow, an accusation of trollery!! !!
Netanyahu isn't going to be the president of the United States any more than Santa Clause is. It's pointless to take such an off the wall hypothetical scenario any more serious than the quippish reply I posted.

Don't get too excited. Trollery, windup, pulling someone's leg, bait, etc.

By your own admission you would enjoy their reaction purely for s**ts and giggles rather then on the merits of doing it.

I never said it was likely. You are not really making a political point.

It is "trolling" in the sense it is a deliberate bait. I'm not saying you have violated the rules, nor am I affected by (as it is not directed at me anyway). The point I was making is being partrisan purely for the sake of it, is a pretty stupid way of approaching policy on an issue. I know this is not the first time you have said something like this.

I've been accused of being a troll many times and always take it as a compliment.

You are missing the point. You you have a certain affinity Christian brethren, especially the bible belt or traditional Conservative. That is fine. You have made a similar comment before where you would support a position of theirs simply on the basis that it it would piss off you rivals, even though you didn't really care that much about the issue yourself.

The Christian right it fact was quite anti-Semitic at times, and the prevailing view is more recent, but we'll overlook that. Lets assume that that the Christian right has always been supporters of Netanyahu types. Well fine. Right now there is a issue of foreign policy especially on the finer details of Iran. Here you are making a similar remark.

You rivals are irrelevant to this, think for yourself. Foreign policy has an impact on you country, so you have an interest to consider it, whether you agree with my view or others. The history I talked about is not as well known as it should be, so it is worth considering when forming a view.

It is a good idea to look at party policy history, some party policy is only there becuase of the history of opposition, and there is no particular reason for that policy being associated with the party ideology. When you look at another country with a party which has parity with such a party, when looking at those sort of policies there is not necessarily parity, and this is becuase they have a different history of opposition. Yet people naively assume this association has always been there bound by manifesto like the Ten Commandments, and if it is an obvious party line.

This is why manifesto politic and this sort is tit for tat is nothing but tribalism, it is not smart.

Did Netanyahu make this trip expecting the next president to be Republican? He knew there was a possibility of pissing off Obama who is in his last term anyway.