Member Profile

Total number of comments: 12 (since 2013-11-28 16:44:45)

Froncek

Showing comments 12 - 1
Page:

  • 3rd Possibility: Coming Civil War in West Bank/ Jerusalem?
    • I've read about Israel/Palestine for years and thought that Israel must have something planned other than the two-state/one-state resolutions (neither which they seemed to like). Israel has been so persistent, and so well organized in their land acquisitions over the years that it would be foolish to think it's happened all by chance or luck.

      Lately, this third option (deporting the Palestinians into Jordan) seems to be picking up momentum. With this option, Israel gets everything they want (the land and they get rid of the Palestinians). One would think that Israel is tired of all the killing and animosity, but it seems to me that they're just getting started.

  • Will Ireland Recognize Palestine?
    • Wow. What would happen if Senator David Norris gave that speech in the USA? I can't even imagine...

  • Incivility: On not Bringing up Occupied Palestinians in Polite Company
    • The 'winning side' gets to write history. Sad but true.

      Hopefully, he's able to move forward and find an even better situation for himself and his family.

  • Palestine goes to UN Security Council to Demand Israeli Withdrawal by 2016
    • Abbas: "We do not want to use this right against anyone, and do not want a confrontation with America. For we have an excellent relationship with it"

      I agree. The words above do not sound like a man driven to secure justice for his people. They sound like a weak leader who is kowtowing to a country that has vetoed 41 votes in the UN Security Council.

      I don't see how anyone that has been vetoed 41 times can call that an "excellent relationship"

      Unfortunately, if Abbas loses the next election and Hamas should win it (Will Hamas even have a representative???), the US & Israel also have that base covered to prolong the whole ordeal (they won't negotiate with Hamas (terrorist)).

      And round and round we go...

  • Palestine Pres. Abbas will urge Int'l Boycott of Israel if US vetoes UN Resolution
    • I'm going to be optimistic and hope that this brings the entire mess to a head. When Israel is hit in the pocketbook, it will bend. Not before then

  • Israeli settlers destroy Palestinian grape vines as Israel Steals More Land
    • It's worked for almost 70 years and they're still there so I doubt a change in strategy is anywhere in Israel's future. Time is on Israel's side. They're now entering a 3rd generation of Palestinian land grabbing, and people living in adversity and under occupation (the Palestinians) for long periods of time eventually just get worn down. It's got to be difficult to worry about the land your family used to own when your current family is having trouble eating. I wish it wasn't true but I think it probably is.

  • Greenwald to BBC: Journalists must investigate the Powerful in Gov't since they Lie to the People (BBC Surprised)
    • I enjoy watching all of Greenwald's interviews. He has a direct way of separating facts and fluff, and reminds people of the way things are 'supposed' to work. There can't be a lot of interviewers out there who look forward to arguing a position that is opposite of his on national television.

  • Dear Tea Party: The Gov't Shutdown is Hurting White People, Too
    • "The reason that the Tea Party doesn’t want Obamacare is because they are convinced that it is ultimately a transfer of wealth from the white rich and middle classes to the minorities."

      What is it that makes the Tea Party believe this? Has there been a recent government or independent projection that taxes on the rich will have to rise in order to afford Obamacare?

      The Tea Party being convinced that the Affordable Care Act is a "transfer of wealth" must be based on some concrete analysis? They are spending a lot of money (I've read that the Koch's themselves have spent an estimated 50 million dollars)and(common sense, at least) says that it MUST be based on some reputable projection that their taxes will have to pay for it.

      I buy into the notion that the rank and file are being manipulated based on racial anxieties...but not so much the Tea Party leaders. My experience is that - behind these types of skirmishes - there's usually someone afraid that they're going to lose their money.

  • Obama goes to Congress on Syria as his International Support Collapses
    • The debate in Congress hasn't yet begun and Lindsey Graham and John McCain are already saying that surgical strikes will not accomplish anything in Syria and that the US has to commit to more. In addition, Israel is disappointed. Obama drew a 'red line' with Syria's use of chemical weapons and Iran's nuclear program, and now that he's deferred to Congress over Syria crossing the red line, Israel wonders where they stand should Iran's nuclear program accelerate.

      A million things can go wrong that could turn a 'limited' strike into a more extensive commitment (Syria counterattacks our warships, lobs missiles into Israel, etc) - and (taking into consideration the influence that the Israeli's have on our Middle East policy) once that ball gets rolling, there’s a possibility it might not stop until it hits Iran.

      A limited strike only reinforces that chemical weapons are not acceptable to the international community (something the international community already knows). A limited strike that escalates into a major commitment has the potential to become a global war (considering all of the countries with differing interests over there).

      I still think that diplomacy is the best action. If it works, fine. If it doesn’t – at least you tried. Who cares if another country thinks that Obama ‘blinked’? 80% of Americans do not want to get involved – so I would assume that they have forgiven Obama’s perceived ‘blinking’. Those are the opinions he should care about.

    • Lots of talk yesterday about Obama losing credibility over not taking action on the crossing of the 'red line' he drew a year ago. I don't see it that way. For one, most rational people would draw the same red line (Nobody thinks its OK to use chemical weapons on their own people)

      Consequences for crossing Obama's 'red line' would probably gain international support 99.9% of the time. However, in this unique instance, the opposition is also crossing 'red lines' (from what I've read, the rebel forces are slaughtering and eviscerating regime innocents).

      It doesn't make sense (just to save credibility) to punish an evil when the result of that punishment will aid another evil. I wouldn't want my kid going over there just so Obama could could claim credibility over a statement he made a year ago and that couldn't possibly have forseen scenarios where punishing one red line contributed to the advancement of another.

      Stay out of it and try diplomacy.

  • Kerry signals US Intervention in Syria, but to What End?
    • I agree that the rebel fighters would not have carried out a mass murder of families who are feeding and sheltering them. I think Dr. Cole's assessment, however, is too limited in it's choices (either it was the Assad regime or the rebels).

      There are additional entities out there with their own separate interests who MIGHT carry out a mass murder of families in order to achieve their goals. Israel may see the introduction of chemical weapons as a way to (eventually) entangle Iran (whom they are convinced is developing nuclear weapons; and Saudi Arabia did not seem very happy with the support their receiving (in arming the rebels) from the West.

      I'm not sure this is an 'either/or' (Assad/rebels) scenario...

  • Another view of Baghdad: Timelapse Video
    • Nice. I bet a lot of people would be surprised at how this short film depicts how similar we are. It goes against the grain of what the mainstream news agencies show us on a nightly basis.

Showing comments 12 - 1
Page: