[Kippy Winstead]

Originally Posted by xenophobic

I guess it escaped your notice Genius but President Carter is going in the capacity of a United States private citizen he isn't authorized to have "Peace talks" with anyone outside that role.

you do realize that he has done work for the UN right brainiac??? including being asked to investigate israel on a number of issues... so if he's... that's right... doing work for the UN... then he can indeed hold talks for the sake of peace...

i'm happy i get to speak with someone as intelligent as you... a person who believes if you aren't "authorized" to discuss peace by the current american admin then you have no business doing it... like the rest of the world has no fucking say... like the UN has no fucking say... it was the UN and not fucking america that created israel in the first fuckign place...

so fuck you very good my friend...

[xenophobic]

Really, I don't see this loophole for the United Nations in the Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

But feel free to keep making bullshit up as you go along.

[Kippy Winstead]

Originally Posted by xenophobic

Really, I don't see this loophole for the United Nations in the Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

But feel free to keep making bullshit up as you go along.

"in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States"

if he was going to syria to try to mend issues with the US and the Palis you would be right... if he went to fuckin afghan to solve problems with usama then yes you would be right... but he CAN be employed to go to another nation and address an issue not pertaining to the US...

we are talking about the palis and the israelis... how would the logan act apply???

can he just decide to go to another nation and be an envoy for the US on a US issue... ala sean penn lol... no... can he speak at conference geared towards peace between the palis and the israeli... of course he can... so could you...

lol... you lose again smart guy...

[Kippy Winstead]

btw piss belt...

your own evidence just got used against you... like carters lawyers would be like... sure you can represent the US without approval.. fuck it... lets end the war on terror and meet with al queda... lol...

PWND.........

[xenophobic]

You completely fail. The meeting occurs in Syria with an agent that is on the designated terrorist organization list, and is part of the PNA which is completely contrary to current U.S Policy by a former U.S President.

President Carter has no authority to discuss "peace" on the behalf of the Israelis, or the U.S So perhaps you can point out how he could be involved in "Peace talks" as you originally claim and seem to be rapidly back-peddling from.

[Kippy Winstead]

Originally Posted by xenophobic

You completely fail. The meeting occurs in Syria with an agent that is on the designated terrorist organization list, and is part of the PNA which is completely contrary to current U.S Policy by a former U.S President.

President Carter has no authority to discuss "peace" on the behalf of the Israelis, or the U.S So perhaps you can point out how he could be involved in "Peace talks" as you originally claim and seem to be rapidly back-peddling from.

lmao... go fuck yourself strawman... i never said he was going as an official US envoy... yet there you go with the fucking logan act... basically making up your own shit to argue against lol... and i STILL beat your piss belt ass...

carter isn't going to syria for anything even pertaining to a US issue... its about the palis and the israelis... and who says he has no authority to discuss peace??? you??? he can discuss what ever the hell he wants so long as its within the law... whos authority does he need to discuss peace??? he obviously has the palis authority to come to the talks doesn't he... lol... he's not there to make american policy... and i never said he was...

i'm saying he SHOULD be speaking to the dem elected government... we were the ones who pushed for elections... then they elect people we don't like and we refuse to speak with them...

i'm no carter fan (he should have sent the shaw back to iranin 79) but the guy has worked for peace internationally for decades... (and i know a lot of fucked up people have gotten one but.....) he also got a NPP in 2002... so was he a criminal every step of the way i guess huh...

[Thaiboxer18]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Well shoot, then all this talk about Israel struggling against overwhelming odds and barely surviving, needing US help, were all lies? Fvck, we got ripped off *really* badly then, worse than I'd thought.

You are correct that the French, not the Americans, gave Israel nukes. But that's because France, not America, was Israel's chief ally until about the mid 1960s, when America took over.

It probably helped Israel in blowing up the Iraqi facility that they used F-15s and F-16s to do it, top-rate technology largely gifted to them by US taxpayers (and which, at that time, we would sell to almost nobody else). In an alternate timeline, would Israel have been perfectly fine without US support, and done it all on their own? Possibly, possibly not. Given that it's so unnecessary, I certainly wish they hadn't received more foreign aid than any other nation on Earth over the past 40 years, whilst being the most ungrateful nation on Earth -- and close to the least reliable as an ally.

Are you sure that the Israelis didn't have to pay for the F-15? I was under the impression that much of the money we give to Israel annually has to be spent on American military stuff, which thus means that the money goes back into America.

I think that the US-Israeli relationship has had some negative effects on all parties. Israel certainly is less inclined to negotiate because they know they have the 80000 pound gorilla on their side, while on the other hand, America has been able to exert power on Israel to not negotiate with Syria. Israel and Syria were very close several years ago to a Golan Heights demilitarization and a peace deal, but the neocons didn't like the idea of it and vetoed it.

If America were not involved, Israel would not be able to rely on America's unconditional support and would have to negotiate from a more realistic perspective.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by Thaiboxer18

Are you sure that the Israelis didn't have to pay for the F-15? I was under the impression that much of the money we give to Israel annually has to be spent on American military stuff, which thus means that the money goes back into America.

I think that the US-Israeli relationship has had some negative effects on all parties. Israel certainly is less inclined to negotiate because they know they have the 80000 pound gorilla on their side, while on the other hand, America has been able to exert power on Israel to not negotiate with Syria. Israel and Syria were very close several years ago to a Golan Heights demilitarization and a peace deal, but the neocons didn't like the idea of it and vetoed it.

If America were not involved, Israel would not be able to rely on America's unconditional support and would have to negotiate from a more realistic perspective.

Much of what we give is indeed in the form of American military aid -- and this is a huge part of the problem, because it's not just the Israeli lobby making it happen. The defense lobby, which is probably an even stronger lobby in America than the Israel lobby, pushes for these programs as a corporate subsidy to itself. So we have our corrupt political system to blame as much, or more, than the Israel lobby. As usual, the problem is us. When both are aligned, it's almost impossible for Washington to resist. So much of the money goes back to the shareholders of the American defense industry, but the excess value is shipped to Israel -- i.e. they really get the equipment, even if the money for it (or discounts thereon) is paid by the American taxpayer to Northrop and Lockheed etc.

I agree with your latter statements. In fact my longstanding position has been that foreign support to both the Israelis and Palis has aggravated the peace process because it allows, and encourages, continuous hostility. If you took out the foreign money and made them deal with their interdependence, they'd have much more incentive to work for peace. Instead foreign nations keep pumping money and support into Israel, into Hamas, etc. We should drain the swamp of foreign influence and, to the extent any aid is given at all, it should be provided only in exchange for dramatic, serious steps taken towards a peaceful two-state solution.

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Much of what we give is indeed in the form of American military aid -- and this is a huge part of the problem, because it's not just the Israeli lobby making it happen. The defense lobby, which is probably an even stronger lobby in America than the Israel lobby, pushes for these programs as a corporate subsidy to itself. So we have our corrupt political system to blame as much, or more, than the Israel lobby. As usual, the problem is us. When both are aligned, it's almost impossible for Washington to resist. So much of the money goes back to the shareholders of the American defense industry, but the excess value is shipped to Israel -- i.e. they really get the equipment, even if the money for it (or discounts thereon) is paid by the American taxpayer to Northrop and Lockheed etc.

I agree with your latter statements. In fact my longstanding position has been that foreign support to both the Israelis and Palis has aggravated the peace process because it allows, and encourages, continuous hostility. If you took out the foreign money and made them deal with their interdependence, they'd have much more incentive to work for peace. Instead foreign nations keep pumping money and support into Israel, into Hamas, etc. We should drain the swamp of foreign influence and, to the extent any aid is given at all, it should be provided only in exchange for dramatic, serious steps taken towards a peaceful .

good assessment.. I do consider though that the AIPAC is pushing for a us led military intervention against iran and that the israeli lobby is guilty of dual loyalty and outright espionage

[Thaiboxer18]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Much of what we give is indeed in the form of American military aid -- and this is a huge part of the problem, because it's not just the Israeli lobby making it happen. The defense lobby, which is probably an even stronger lobby in America than the Israel lobby, pushes for these programs as a corporate subsidy to itself. So we have our corrupt political system to blame as much, or more, than the Israel lobby. As usual, the problem is us. When both are aligned, it's almost impossible for Washington to resist. So much of the money goes back to the shareholders of the American defense industry, but the excess value is shipped to Israel -- i.e. they really get the equipment, even if the money for it (or discounts thereon) is paid by the American taxpayer to Northrop and Lockheed etc.

I agree with your latter statements. In fact my longstanding position has been that foreign support to both the Israelis and Palis has aggravated the peace process because it allows, and encourages, continuous hostility. If you took out the foreign money and made them deal with their interdependence, they'd have much more incentive to work for peace. Instead foreign nations keep pumping money and support into Israel, into Hamas, etc. We should drain the swamp of foreign influence and, to the extent any aid is given at all, it should be provided only in exchange for dramatic, serious steps taken towards a peaceful two-state solution.

Don't forget the Evangelical lobby.

I agree with the rest.