• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:20
CEST 02:20
KST 09:20
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Who will win EWC 2025? Geoff 'iNcontroL' Robinson has passed away Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
Corsair Pursuit Micro? BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Pro gamer house photos Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
BWCL Season 63 Announcement CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
[MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 557 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1688

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
March 02 2015 21:56 GMT
#33741
Ofc they call it "encouragement" to pull themselfs up by their bootstraps, not punishment. And everyone trying to help or change something is an "enabler". Just because they have developed a special lingo for their views, doesnt mean their motives are anything else than an us vs them mentality in the vein of "they fucked up and deserve their fate".

About the veterans: yes, enough of them have huge troubles fitting in and why wouldn't they? PTSD, social isolation, missmatch of skills and other issues are always present when soldiers return from war.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 02 2015 22:09 GMT
#33742
On March 03 2015 06:56 puerk wrote:
Ofc they call it "encouragement" to pull themselfs up by their bootstraps, not punishment. And everyone trying to help or change something is an "enabler". Just because they have developed a special lingo for their views, doesnt mean their motives are anything else than an us vs them mentality in the vein of "they fucked up and deserve their fate".

About the veterans: yes, enough of them have huge troubles fitting in and why wouldn't they? PTSD, social isolation, missmatch of skills and other issues are always present when soldiers return from war.

Do you have a source for any of that? I live in the US and it sounds like you're describing an alien planet. Helping people in need is encouraged and looked highly upon. Habitat for Humanity, which helps build affordable housing, is one of the more respected charities in the country. Charitable giving in general is highly encouraged.

Sounds like you've fallen for anti-US propaganda.
Toadesstern
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Germany16350 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 22:16:57
March 02 2015 22:15 GMT
#33743
On March 03 2015 06:56 puerk wrote:
Ofc they call it "encouragement" to pull themselfs up by their bootstraps, not punishment. And everyone trying to help or change something is an "enabler". Just because they have developed a special lingo for their views, doesnt mean their motives are anything else than an us vs them mentality in the vein of "they fucked up and deserve their fate".

About the veterans: yes, enough of them have huge troubles fitting in and why wouldn't they? PTSD, social isolation, missmatch of skills and other issues are always present when soldiers return from war.

keep in mind that you have a heavy bias towards "weird" people posting on news sites and all that, at least in my opinion. 99% of the normal guys out there just don't care enough to make some random post on a random whatever news-site. If you read some german newsfeed and comments on that, in german, you'll get stuff that's completly divorced from reality when it comes to public opinion as well.

Same goes for news in general. There's obviously a bias towards stuff that's entertaining or shocking in some way.
<Elem> >toad in charge of judging lewdness <Elem> how bad can it be <Elem> also wew, that is actually p lewd.
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
March 02 2015 22:30 GMT
#33744
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23211 Posts
March 02 2015 22:36 GMT
#33745
On March 03 2015 07:30 puerk wrote:
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.



Like criminalizing being homeless... And making criminals out of people who help them...The fact that so many homeless are veterans is one of the most disgusting parts about how the homeless/veterans are treated in the US.

Anyone who thinks that the US is doing anywhere close to the best it can regarding homeless people is living on an alien planet.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
March 02 2015 22:40 GMT
#33746
On March 03 2015 07:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:30 puerk wrote:
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.



Like criminalizing being homeless... And making criminals out of people who help them...The fact that so many homeless are veterans is one of the most disgusting parts about how the homeless/veterans are treated in the US.

Anyone who thinks that the US is doing anywhere close to the best it can regarding homeless people is living on an alien planet.

or went to business school
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 22:58:27
March 02 2015 22:48 GMT
#33747
On March 03 2015 07:30 puerk wrote:
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.

Here's Europe:
France Roma Camps Demolished, Gypsies Forced Into Hiding
Source

All you bastards do is bulldoze poor people's homes and then call them not your own, right?

Homelessness in the US has been falling:

[image loading]

... because we love homelessness so much I'm sure We also have articles criticizing that city's actions, again, because we love homelessness so much.

Edit:
Europe’s homeless problem getting worse

+ Show Spoiler +
In 1954 French priest and founder of the Emmaus charity Abbé Peirre said: ‘‘My friends, please help….a woman has just frozen to death. Tonight in all the cities of France this should be heard – those of you who suffer, where ever you might be, with nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat, take hope, we love you.’‘

Sixty years on since that speech, France and Europe’s homeless problem shows no signs of disappearing and actually appears to be getting worse.

In addition, more and more people in Europe are living in poor housing.

Due in large part to the global financial crisis, increasing numbers find themselves in dilapidated accommodation, frequently without basic amenities such as running water and heating.

France’s homeless problem appears particularly acute. In the last decade the number of people in poor housing has risen by 50 percent. This affects more than 3.5 million French. Just under 150,000 are living on the street.

But it is not only France. The latest figures show homelessness across Europe has increased. The most notable rises are in those member states hit hardest by the economic crisis, and in big cities like London.

The rise in poverty and social exclusion is also a worrying trend across the EU, with nearly a quarter of the bloc’s population suffering.

Equally concerning perhaps is the figure that just under 10 percent of Europeans live in severe deprivation.

Figures suggest women, children and those under the age of 25 find getting proper accommodation and escaping the poverty trap especially difficult. Some 50,000 Roma in France also struggle to obtain social housing.


In Greece, a lack of jobs has pushed thousands onto the streets. One of the fastest growing reasons across Europe for homelessness is when tenancy agreements end and people are unable to find or afford an alternative.

+ Show Spoiler +
During his election campaign President Francois Hollande made improvements in social housing one of his priorities. But, 60 years after Abbé Pierre’s appeal for help for France’s homeless, critics say the French government has failed to do enough to fulfill this pledge, as well as get people off the streets.
source

Germany's glorious austerity strikes again. I guess those Greeks just need to pull harder on their bootstraps and it'll all be fine. And if not, whatever, they're just paying back their sins / debts.
MoltkeWarding
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 23:02:20
March 02 2015 22:49 GMT
#33748
Really all that is your point of view. Point of view that, considering what happened before and after, seems quite difficult to support. Taking the Politburo speech for exemple, it is quite easy to understand Stalin's behavior regarding the tripartite pact. I agree that Stalin, and Russia overall never wanted to "dominate" europe from a militarist standpoint. I still believe - because there are no way to truthfully prove it - they wanted to assert their influence over europe - in the same way that the US did with the NATO.
For your narrative to be true, you still have to put aside a lot of things that - while not entirely historically proved - are heavily discussed : for exemple, the idea (supported by some soviet generals) that Stalin prepared the invasion of Germany before the operation barbarossa.


The contemporary myth that the Soviet Union planned to pre-emptively attack Germany is on account of a single book, Suvorov's Icebreaker, a book which incidentally, not only lacks documentary evidence to support its claims, but is contradicted by the work of traditional diplomatic historians covering the 1940-41 period. Although I haven't researched the subject myself, the central thesis, that Germany in June 1941 attacked into the jaws of an offensive Soviet deployment seems to be completely contradicted by the experience of Barbarossa, in which Germany encountered a defensive deployment in depth.
More proximately, Stalin's orders to the front prior to Barbarossa: ignore German overhead flights, ignore German border incursions, no return of fire even in the event of cross-border firing, as well as his obsequious behaviour to the German ambassador in Moscow, and his diplomatic capitulations on Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, the intensification of trade shipments to Germany on the eve of the invasion, all suggest that the traditional narrative is correct: Stalin was dreadfully afraid of provoking a German invasion, either in consequence of British manipulations, or in consequence of an "anti-Soviet" clique in the German military establishment taking matters into their own hands.

1. Sure, all this is good and true but ultimately irrelevant. The key is that the US *should* have entered earlier. Which hardly anyone would disagree with.


Well as long as we are talking about idealised and ahistorical decisions, we might as well say that Germany should never have invaded Poland in 1939.

2. So we're agreed that a '42 landing was impossible? That was the point. Again, my comments were limited and meant to represent the broad consensus.


I agree that the view that American wartime strategy was characterised by self-aggrandising opportunism is unsound, and does not stand up to any examination of American wartime policy.

6. This was a "probably" statement in the first place, so it's not as strong a claim, for all the reasons you point out. But I think balance of probability favored the Soviets in a straight European war between them and the Nazis, and most historians I've read on the question hold some version of that opinion.


Unfortunately, military realities are not isolated realities, and do not stand up to analysis in isolation. Could Prussia and Russia have defeated Napoleon without Austrian intervention in 1813? Probably not, but the question by 1813 was no longer who would win a total war of national annihilation, but how far the power and influence of France could be curtailed in Europe under a general acknowledgement of material realities. The restoration of the Bourbons added an ideological dimension to the conflict, but up until 1814, the Allies were prepared to deal with the Napoleonic government.

The exclusion of the United States from the balance of those realities would have had an incalculable effect on the political dynamics of the war itself.

7. Do you really think Hitler winning would not have meant the deaths of millions more Jews and Slavs?


That depends on what rationale you place at Germany's disposal in 1942. I am quite agnostic on this point. As for Slavs, there was no uniform attitude to "slavs" during the Second World War. Slavic nations aligned to Germany were supported, slavic nations which resisted were crushed.

8. Stalin had plenty of appetite for domination. He took as much as he could and would absolutely have eaten the entire pie if he could have. The British would had to have settled accomodations with the Soviets, but the power the British would have held in that struggle would have been very little. The British still had an empire and navy, but the Soviets would have had a staggering amount of resources, even without a proper economic revitalization of Europe.


There is no evidence that Stalin had aims more ambitious than consolidation of his position in Eastern Europe post-45, but he clashed with the West on Germany. As West-East relations deteriorated, the main objective of the Soviet foreign policy in the early cold war was to prevent a unified West Germany aligned with the Western Powers. In this, he failed, and once the division of Germany was locked in place, it became impossible to retreat from the Cold War.

9. You don't think it was good there was a free part of Germany? Don't tell Nyx...


I don't think it was laudable that the division of Germany as the central issue in the Cold War prolonged the conflict much longer than necessary. I approve in some proximate sense Adenauer's Western alignment in the early-50s, but I think it was a mistake to place Germany's western alignment on a permanent footing.

And also, you think NATO membership means not having national sovereignty? Sovereignty is about getting to make your own laws. Being in a military alliance is consistent with being sovereign. And, mind you, NATO members are very much allowed to go off and wage their own little wars, and regularly have.


Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956?
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
March 02 2015 23:03 GMT
#33749
On March 03 2015 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:30 puerk wrote:
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.

Here's Europe:
Show nested quote +
France Roma Camps Demolished, Gypsies Forced Into Hiding
Source

All you bastards do is bulldoze poor people's homes and then call them not your own, right?

Homelessness in the US has been falling:

[image loading]

... because we love homelessness so much I'm sure We also have articles criticizing that city's actions, again, because we love homelessness so much.


You know that germany and france are actually different countries? And that i never said that europe has no problems?
This is the us politics megathread, thats why we discuss american political problems. It came up because of police killing a homelessmen in LA. I read up on killings of homeless by the police and the issue that again and again kept coming up was that they deserved it for violating the law and opposing the police.

But i agree with Toadesstern, that this is a slanted view and biased towards people actually vocalizing their thoughts on homeless people getting shot by the police. Very likely the silent majority is actually not thinking that they deserve it, but a very loud part of the population gets public airtime on fox to deride people as moochers, beggars, and anyone helping as enablers. I know you don't acknowledge that that happens. And if it were true it wouldn't be a problem. And if it were true and a problem you wouldn't want to do anything against those attitude, because regarding free expression anything goes, even it is dehumanizing people in need.
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
March 02 2015 23:09 GMT
#33750
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956?


I think it's pretty archaic to determine a countries sovereignty by their ability to wage war. We've had enough war for a millennium on the continent. Countries were okay with US "dictating" Western policies because we honestly had better things to do then to start the next imperial adventure. This "Germany is an American vassal state" talk borders more on conspiracy than history.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 23:14:45
March 02 2015 23:12 GMT
#33751
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:

Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956?

Suez Crisis and Falklands War comes to mind. It's uncommon and certainly no such wars involve Germany, but NATO states are not beholden to the United States. It's simply not usually prudent because of the costs of the wars and justifying such expense to the public about why it is so important that NATO or US support is not needed or wanted.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that US wars that do not have NATO consent are also fairly rare for the same reason. Explaining a conflict to the public needs to include a justification about why NATO approval is not needed or wanted, and that's fairly difficult to do.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 02 2015 23:23 GMT
#33752
On March 03 2015 08:03 puerk wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On March 03 2015 07:30 puerk wrote:
Yes i know its all anti-US propaganda, it must be....
http://mic.com/articles/103382/this-city-arrested-a-90-year-old-good-samaritan-for-feeding-the-homeless
and follow up: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7319655/fort-lauderdale-homeless-housing-first

For you this is all rational and lawful, and only a twisted anti american propaganda mind could see anything wrong with the involved attitudes.

Here's Europe:
France Roma Camps Demolished, Gypsies Forced Into Hiding
Source

All you bastards do is bulldoze poor people's homes and then call them not your own, right?

Homelessness in the US has been falling:

[image loading]

... because we love homelessness so much I'm sure We also have articles criticizing that city's actions, again, because we love homelessness so much.


You know that germany and france are actually different countries? And that i never said that europe has no problems?
This is the us politics megathread, thats why we discuss american political problems. It came up because of police killing a homelessmen in LA. I read up on killings of homeless by the police and the issue that again and again kept coming up was that they deserved it for violating the law and opposing the police.

But i agree with Toadesstern, that this is a slanted view and biased towards people actually vocalizing their thoughts on homeless people getting shot by the police. Very likely the silent majority is actually not thinking that they deserve it, but a very loud part of the population gets public airtime on fox to deride people as moochers, beggars, and anyone helping as enablers. I know you don't acknowledge that that happens. And if it were true it wouldn't be a problem. And if it were true and a problem you wouldn't want to do anything against those attitude, because regarding free expression anything goes, even it is dehumanizing people in need.

Here's an article on Germany:

Homeless in Germany given the boot

The number of people sleeping rough in Germany has gone up significantly in Germany in the last few years. But local governments and businesses are stepping up measures to keep them out of city centers.

... Germany's umbrella organization for housing assistance (BAGW) says the number of people without a domicile in Germany has gone up dramatically over the last few years. In 2012, 284,000 people had nowhere to live - a rise of 15 percent compared to 2010. And BAGW expects that figure to rise again by a further 30 percent to 380,000 by 2016.

... A few years ago, a big fashion chain in Hamburg came up with a particularly drastic means of keeping the homeless away from the shop's entrance. Whoever settled down there for the night was woken up by sprinklers at some point in the night and ended up soaked. The chain also used this method for its branch in the town of Münster in western Germany.
Source

And sure, you didn't say that Europe was problem free, but you did claim that homelessness was a particularly bad problem in the US and that people here not only don't give a shit, but actually think of homelessness as a positive.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
March 02 2015 23:28 GMT
#33753
Transcript of Netanyahu's speech to Congress:

Quoted in its entirety, spoilered for length

+ Show Spoiler +
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference Delivered on March 2, 2015

“Thank you. Wow, 16,000 people. Anyone here from California? Florida? New York?

Well, these are the easy ones. How about Colorado? Indiana? I think I got it. Montana?Texas?

You’re here in record numbers. You’re here from coast to coast,from every part of this great land. And you’re here at a critical time. You’re here to tell the world that reports of the demise of the Israeli-U.S. relations are not only premature, they’re just wrong.

You’re here to tell the world that our alliance is stronger than ever.

And because of you, and millions like you, across this great country, it’s going to get even stronger in the coming years.

Thank you Bob Cohen, Michael Kassen, Howard Kohr and all the leadership of AIPAC. Thank youfor your tireless, dedicated work to strengthen the partnership between Israel and the United States.

I want to thank,most especially, Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans. I deeply appreciate your steadfast support for Israel, year in, year out. You have our boundless gratitude.

I want to welcome President Zeman of the Czech Republic.Mr. President, Israel never forgets its friends. And the Czech people have always been steadfast friends of Israel, the Jewish people, from the days of Thomas Masaryk at the inception of Zionism.

You know, Mr. President, when I entered the Israeli army in 1967, I received a Czech rifle.That was one of the rifles that was given to us by your people in our time of need in 1948. So thank you for being here today.

Also here are two great friends of Israel, former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar and as of last month, former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.Thank you both for your unwavering support. You are true champions of Israel, and you are, too, champions of the truth.

I also want to recognize the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, for your genuine friendship, Dan,and for the great job you’re doing representing the United States and the State of Israel.

And I want to recognize the two Rons. I want to thank Ambassador Ron Prosor for the exemplary job he’s doing at the U.N. in a very difficult forum.

And I want to recognize the other Ron, a man who knows how to take the heat, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer.Ron, I couldn’t be prouder to have you representing Israel in Washington.

And finally, I want to recognize my wife, Sara, whose courage in the face of adversity is an inspiration to me.Sara divides her time as a child psychologist, as a loving mother, and her public duties as the wife of the prime minister.Sara, I’m so proud to have you here with me today, to have you with me at my side always.

My friends, I bring greetings to you from Jerusalem, our eternal undivided capital.

And I also bring to you news that you may not have heard. You see, I’ll be speaking in Congress tomorrow.

You know, never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given. And I’m not going to speak today about the content of that speech, but I do want to say a few words about the purpose of that speech.

First, let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.

I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the U.N., and much more, some things that I, as prime minister of Israel, cannot even divulge to you because it remains in the realm of the confidences that are kept between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.

My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate. An important reason why our alliance has grown stronger decade after decade is that it has been championed by both parties and so it must remain.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have worked together with friends from both sides of the aisle in Congress to strengthen Israel and our alliance between our two countries, and working together, they have provided Israel with generous military assistance and missile defense spending. We’ve seen how important that is just last summer.

Working together, they’ve made Israel the first free trade partner of America 30 years ago and its first official strategic partner last year.

They’ve backed Israel in defending itself at war and in our efforts to achieve a durable peace with our neighbors. Working together has made Israel stronger; working together has made our alliance stronger.

And that’s why the last thing that anyone who cares about Israel,the last thing that I would want is for Israel to become a partisan issue. And I regret that some people have misperceived my visit here this week as doing that. Israel has always been a bipartisan issue.

Israel should always remain a bipartisan issue.

Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Look at that graph. Look at that map. And you see on the wall, it shows Iran training, arming,dispatching terrorists on five continents. Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror. This is what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons.

And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.

And as prime minister of Israel, I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there’s still time to avert them. For 2000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.

Well, no more, no more.

The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over.Today in our sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves. And being able to defend ourselves, we ally with others, most importantly, the United States of America, to defend our common civilization against common threats.

In our part of the world and increasingly, in every part of the world, no one makes alliances with the weak. You seek out those who have strength, those who have resolve, those who have the determination to fight for themselves. That’s how alliances are formed.

So we defend ourselves and in so doing, create the basis of a broader alliance.

And today, we are no longer silent; today, we have a voice.And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice.

I plan to speak about an Iranian regime that is threatening to destroy Israel, that’s devouring country after country in the Middle East, that’s exporting terror throughout the world and that is developing, as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons, lots of them.

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons.

Now disagreements among allies are only natural from time to time, even among the closest of allies. Because they’re important differences between America and Israel.

The United States of America is a large country,one of the largest. Israel is a small country, one of the smallest.

America lives in one of the world’s safest neighborhoods. Israel lives in the world’s most dangerous neighborhood. America is the strongest power in the world. Israel is strong, but it’s much more vulnerable. American leaders worry about the security of their country. Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country.

You know I think that encapsulates the difference. I’ve been prime minister of Israel for nine years. There’s not a single day, not one daythat I didn’t think about the survival of my country and the actions that I take to ensure that survival, not one day.

And because of these differences, America and Israel have had some serious disagreements over the course of our nearly 70-year-old friendship.

Now, it started with the beginning. In 1948, Secretary of State Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood.That’s an understatement. He vehemently opposed it. But Ben-Gurion,understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence.

In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck,the United States warned Prime Minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act — acted alone to defend itself.

In 1981, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak. The United States criticized Israel and suspended arms transfers for three months. And in 2002, after the worst wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, Prime Minister Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield. The United States demanded that Israel withdraw its troops immediately, but Sharon continued until the operation was completed.

There’s a reason I mention all these. I mention them to make a point. Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade.

And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future.And I’ll tell you why; because we share the same dreams. Because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world; because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide usvalues like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance,compassion.

As our region descends into medieval barbarism, Israel is the one that upholds these values common to us and to you.

As Assad drops bell bombs on his own people, Israeli doctors treat his victims in our hospitals right across the fence in the Golan Heights.

As Christians in the Middle East are beheaded and their ancient communities are decimated, Israel’s Christian community is growing and thriving, the only one such community in the Middle East.

As women in the region are repressed, enslaved, and raped, women in Israel serve as chief justices, CEOs, fighter pilots, two women chief justices in a row. Well, not in a row, but in succession. That’s pretty good.

In a dark, and savage, and desperate Middle East, Israel is a beacon of humanity, of light, and of hope.

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel and the United States will continue to stand together because America and Israel are more than friends. We’re like a family. We’re practically mishpocha.

Now, disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable, but we must always remember that we are family.

Rooted in a common heritage, upholding common values, sharing a common destiny. And that’s the message I came to tell you today. Our alliance is sound. Our friendship is strong. And with your efforts it will get even stronger in the years to come.

Thank you, AIPAC. Thank you, America. God bless you all.”
MoltkeWarding
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
March 02 2015 23:29 GMT
#33754
On March 03 2015 08:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956?


I think it's pretty archaic to determine a countries sovereignty by their ability to wage war. We've had enough war for a millennium on the continent. Countries were okay with US "dictating" Western policies because we honestly had better things to do then to start the next imperial adventure. This "Germany is an American vassal state" talk borders more on conspiracy than history.


It's somewhat amusing that EU idealists think that they are incarnating a new idea, when they have simply switched roles with 19th century America on the global stage. This merely borders on a special plea in justification of impotence, when the superintending power conceives of itself, and its role in the world in Hegelian terms.

We know that this is simply the idea stooping to fit the reality, since there is no consistency in the view that one set of acts is unacceptable for Germany, Britain or France, yet the same set of acts is acceptable when performed by the United States. This is not the triumph of an idealistic principle; this is merely political fatalism, a sense of resignation that your people are diminished to the status of a minor power in the world, and inventing the justification to fit the impression.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 23:41:14
March 02 2015 23:37 GMT
#33755
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Show nested quote +
Really all that is your point of view. Point of view that, considering what happened before and after, seems quite difficult to support. Taking the Politburo speech for exemple, it is quite easy to understand Stalin's behavior regarding the tripartite pact. I agree that Stalin, and Russia overall never wanted to "dominate" europe from a militarist standpoint. I still believe - because there are no way to truthfully prove it - they wanted to assert their influence over europe - in the same way that the US did with the NATO.
For your narrative to be true, you still have to put aside a lot of things that - while not entirely historically proved - are heavily discussed : for exemple, the idea (supported by some soviet generals) that Stalin prepared the invasion of Germany before the operation barbarossa.


The contemporary myth that the Soviet Union planned to pre-emptively attack Germany is on account of a single book, Suvorov's Icebreaker, a book which incidentally, not only lacks documentary evidence to support its claims, but is contradicted by the work of traditional diplomatic historians covering the 1940-41 period. Although I haven't researched the subject myself, the central thesis, that Germany in June 1941 attacked into the jaws of an offensive Soviet deployment seems to be completely contradicted by the experience of Barbarossa, in which Germany encountered a defensive deployment in depth.
More proximately, Stalin's orders to the front prior to Barbarossa: ignore German overhead flights, ignore German border incursions, no return of fire even in the event of cross-border firing, as well as his obsequious behaviour to the German ambassador in Moscow, and his diplomatic capitulations on Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, the intensification of trade shipments to Germany on the eve of the invasion, all suggest that the traditional narrative is correct: Stalin was dreadfully afraid of provoking a German invasion, either in consequence of British manipulations, or in consequence of an "anti-Soviet" clique in the German military establishment taking matters into their own hands.

That's untrue, it's not on the account of a single book... A quick search on the internet would show you that overall historian agree that Stalin made preparation for a possible war in europe : what the historian disagree with in the book you cited is that the German attacked preemptively... Here is another book that support this idea. Putting aside every fact that doesn't go in your way and pointing out specific events and painting them in the color that fit your narrative is not really history.
By the way, the simple existence of the barbarossa contredict your points : if the german attacked, it means they intended to dominate europe outside of their perimeter (the great germany or whatever). If they attacked for self defence, it mean that they believe Russia would attempt to dominate europe. Both ways are okay to me (altho most historian would say the second vision is false).

On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 20.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 30% higher, despite the much stronger economy.

Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.

That's because homeless in the US is an old problem, while it's new in Europe, but if we continue doing what we do, we'll soon catch up. We have no superiority in term of inequalities considering what we have done in the last 10 years.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
puerk
Profile Joined February 2015
Germany855 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-02 23:43:24
March 02 2015 23:39 GMT
#33756
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.

Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.

Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry.
Dapper_Cad
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United Kingdom964 Posts
March 02 2015 23:54 GMT
#33757
On March 03 2015 08:12 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:

Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956?

Suez Crisis and Falklands War comes to mind. It's uncommon and certainly no such wars involve Germany, but NATO states are not beholden to the United States. It's simply not usually prudent because of the costs of the wars and justifying such expense to the public about why it is so important that NATO or US support is not needed or wanted.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that US wars that do not have NATO consent are also fairly rare for the same reason. Explaining a conflict to the public needs to include a justification about why NATO approval is not needed or wanted, and that's fairly difficult to do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#The_US_officially_comes_down_on_the_side_of_the_British
But he is never making short-term prediction, everyone of his prediction are based on fundenmentals, but he doesn't exactly know when it will happen... So using these kind of narrowed "who-is-right" empirical analysis makes little sense.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 03 2015 00:11 GMT
#33758
On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.

Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.

Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry.

For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans?

7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same?
dAPhREAk
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Nauru12397 Posts
March 03 2015 00:16 GMT
#33759
unsurprisingly, DOJ not charging Zimmerman with civil rights violations.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-doj-announces-charges-george-zimmerman/story?id=29186648
MoltkeWarding
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-03 00:31:15
March 03 2015 00:23 GMT
#33760
On March 03 2015 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Really all that is your point of view. Point of view that, considering what happened before and after, seems quite difficult to support. Taking the Politburo speech for exemple, it is quite easy to understand Stalin's behavior regarding the tripartite pact. I agree that Stalin, and Russia overall never wanted to "dominate" europe from a militarist standpoint. I still believe - because there are no way to truthfully prove it - they wanted to assert their influence over europe - in the same way that the US did with the NATO.
For your narrative to be true, you still have to put aside a lot of things that - while not entirely historically proved - are heavily discussed : for exemple, the idea (supported by some soviet generals) that Stalin prepared the invasion of Germany before the operation barbarossa.


The contemporary myth that the Soviet Union planned to pre-emptively attack Germany is on account of a single book, Suvorov's Icebreaker, a book which incidentally, not only lacks documentary evidence to support its claims, but is contradicted by the work of traditional diplomatic historians covering the 1940-41 period. Although I haven't researched the subject myself, the central thesis, that Germany in June 1941 attacked into the jaws of an offensive Soviet deployment seems to be completely contradicted by the experience of Barbarossa, in which Germany encountered a defensive deployment in depth.
More proximately, Stalin's orders to the front prior to Barbarossa: ignore German overhead flights, ignore German border incursions, no return of fire even in the event of cross-border firing, as well as his obsequious behaviour to the German ambassador in Moscow, and his diplomatic capitulations on Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, the intensification of trade shipments to Germany on the eve of the invasion, all suggest that the traditional narrative is correct: Stalin was dreadfully afraid of provoking a German invasion, either in consequence of British manipulations, or in consequence of an "anti-Soviet" clique in the German military establishment taking matters into their own hands.

That's untrue, it's not on the account of a single book... A quick search on the internet would show you that overall historian agree that Stalin made preparation for a possible war in europe : what the historian disagree with in the book you cited is that the German attacked preemptively... Here is another book that support this idea. Putting aside every fact that doesn't go in your way and pointing out specific events and painting them in the color that fit your narrative is not really history.
By the way, the simple existence of the barbarossa contredict your points : if the german attacked, it means they intended to dominate europe outside of their perimeter (the great germany or whatever). If they attacked for self defence, it mean that they believe Russia would attempt to dominate europe. Both ways are okay to me (altho most historian would say the second vision is false).



I haven't read Meltiyukhov's book, but on a quick glance, I don't see any indication that he uses any sources different from the ones alleged by Suvorov, namely the inference from the Zhukov plans of May 1941 that there was a political intention to attack the German Reich. This can be backed up by a ton of circumstancial evidence, surrounding the tightening of Soviet armed preparations in April-May 1941. This was in a great deal of reaction to Hitler's ominous silences towards Russia in his April speeches, in consequence of which Stalin made several cautionary domestic speeches, civilians were being shifted out of the frontier areas, circular transmissions of warnings to Soviet consulates abroad, etc.

If however, the mobilisation of Soviet preparatory measures had an offensive, rather than a defensive measure, how does one account for the opposite impressions gained on the diplomatic front? Throughout April and May, Soviet appeasement of Germany intensified. In April the USSR recognised Rashid Ali's regime in Iraq, and in May she withdrew recognition from the Western governments in exile. In June, Stalin ramped up direct contacts with Hungarian, Rumanian and Finnish ministers and Moscow. Finally, on June 19th, there was Molotov's summons of Schulenburg. The German minutes deserve full citation:

There were a number of indications that the German Government was dissatisfied with the Soviet Government. Rumors were even current that a war was impending between Germany and the Soviet Union. They found sustenance in the fact that there was no reaction whatsoever on the part of Germany to the TASS report of June 13 (the report referred to was a denial of Soviet-German frictions and war rumours) that it was not even published in Germany. The Soviet Government was unable to understand the reasons for Germany's dissatisfaction. If the Yugoslav question had at the time given rise to such dissatisfaction, he - Molotov - believed that, by means of his earlier communications, he had cleared up this question, which, moreover, was a thing of the past. He would appreciate it if Schulenburg could tell him what had brought about the present situation in German-Soviet Russian relations.


If Stalin had sincerely plotted a pre-emptive German attack, how does one account for his breakdown in June 1941, or his immediate search for peace feelers through Bulgarian intermediaries?

The entire contention that Barbarossa proves some kind of overweening German ambition does not corroborate anything, since it refuses to take into account the German rationale, and the German decision-making process which led to the final decision taken in early 1941. Germany's invasion of Russia was planned upon strategic-political lines, not ideological ones. It was motivated by a desire to eliminate Russia from the military-political equation in Europe, and thereby compel the British to make peace with Germany. In this, Hitler's turn towards Russia was not so different from Napoleon's motives in 1812.

Also, I would appreciate a halt to allegations of historical bias, when I am not the one google-researching to defend a particular narrative.
Prev 1 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1d 9h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Livibee 46
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 251
Aegong 31
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1040
League of Legends
JimRising 707
Counter-Strike
fl0m2384
Fnx 513
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe161
Other Games
tarik_tv35544
summit1g16989
gofns13731
hungrybox598
shahzam577
Maynarde176
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2269
BasetradeTV41
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta110
• Hupsaiya 93
• RyuSc2 49
• Sammyuel 11
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
1d 9h
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
2 days
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.