By Ted Belman
If I had been the President of the US for the last four years:
1. I would have forced the PA to negotiate a deal with Israel, i.e., to make the necessary concessions. I would clearly support the settlements and take the position that Israel should include most settlements so that less that 5% of the settlers would have to be moved. This could be done by reducing the PA’s economic and diplomatic support. I would have moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem to indicate my belief that at least the west part of Jerusalem would remain in Israel in any settlement.
2. I would have insisted on UNRWA being unwound. This could be done by economic pressure. I would have insisted that all Palestinians be given citizenship in their host countries or would have arranged for their re-settlement elsewhere but not in Judea and Samaria.
3. I would have left Gadaffi in power. He was no longer a threat to the west and had been rehabilitated.
4. I would have supported Mubarak because he was a trusted ally and a stabilizing force for 30 years.
5. I would have been more committed to the removal of Assad but not on behalf of Turkey and the MB but on behalf of the various minorities who wanted a federated Syria to replace Assad’s Syria rather than a MB dominated Syria. I would have seen this as a weakening of Iran and of Hezbollah. I would have negotiated with Russia to see if the conflict could be resolved through an agreement between the US and Russia like splitting Syria into two spheres of influence if not two countries. Part of this deal would be the denial of any influence by Iran.
6. I would have condemned Turkey’s role in the Mavi Marmara and stood with Israel. If anyone was entitled to an apology, it was Israel.
7. I would have sought energy independence to give the US more independence from Saudi Arabia. That would have enable me to force Saudi Arabia to desist in spreading Wahabbism.
8. I would have left a significant US military presence, up to 50,000, in Iraq, and preferably in Kurdistan. I would have moved the US troops from Germany to control costs. There is no need for them to be there any more.
9. I would have retreated from Afghanistan as quickly as safety would permit. There is no victory for the US in Afghanistan, only death.
10. I would have taken on the HRC at the UN. The only members who would be eligible to sit on it would be members who support human ?rights in their own countries. Until that happened, I would have withheld financial support from the UN.
@ yamit82:
I do see you — and if your BODY were 7’2″ and 320 lbs, I’d still repeat:
— “You are a very frightened, very little man.”
Your need to categorize — to pigeonhole — everybody in your world
— is a dead giveaway (one of many such “tells”).
Now how did I know you would say a thing like that?
— Think maybe I’ve been reading your mail?
@ yamit82:
Keep telling yourself that
— it’s SURE to improve the situation. . . .
A plausible enough explanation — until one realizes that you’ve made SEVERAL such attempts at ‘diagnosing’ me (oddly though, you keep arriving at different ‘diagnoses’).
You’ve lit on the lazy man’s way of evading the SUBSTANCE of an opposing position:
— Attack the person himself INSTEAD of his case; write off the person with an ad hominem attack — so much easier than opening own your mind to address the substance of a matter.
You do the same thing with Curious. Rather than deal with the question he raises, you tar him with the “antisemite” brush. Presto, poof, magic; no need to address the question on the merits. But only in your dark, paranoid fantasies.
Just remember, when everybody who gets your goat is an ‘antisemite’
— then nobody is.
You dilute — and destroy — the meaning and power of the word.
Worse, you trivialize & assault the memory of those who suffered & died in consequence of the REAL article.
@ yamit82:
A pity that they didn’t bother training you to LIVE dispassionately
— you’d have been happier, healthier, stronger, more secure
and so would those you cared about.
Right — that they’ll catch on that I’m “obsessive compulsive,” “anal retentive”. . . .
you should see my living quarters
— also “lactose intolerant,” “double-jointed,” “non-orgasmic”. . . .
me and the energizer bunny.
But now you’ve fathomed my secret. LOLROF. Good one.
“Believer in?” — I believe there IS one (singular, not plural).
But there’s a vast difference between believing something actually EXISTS — and believing-IN the something.
The latter presumes some kind of reliance bordering on (if not actually incorporating) VENERATION.
That’s not me. There’s a devil, but that’s it. I don’t have a thing about it.
When have I ever said (or suggested) that?
— where do you keep coming up with this shmegegge about what I supposedly believe?
Oh please nudnik, if YOU call a spade a “spade,” it’s only because you ALSO
— call a club a “spade,” a diamond a “spade,” and a heart a “spade.”
You’d probably call the freakin’ JOKER a “spade” too (though that would doubtless prompt some dingbat to accuse you of ‘racism’).
Death under most circumstances is a disgrace.
You DON’T “fear death”?
Maybe to you it sounds like me.
Not to me it doesn’t — not remotely like me.
My ongoing objective & daily intention is not at all to ‘overcome’ myself
— but to submit myself IN THE MOMENT — for redefinition & re-creation — TO, and BY, haSHEM.
All the rest — ALL the rest — is window dresssing.
@ yamit82:
When you quote him repeatedly, “context” is pretext
— when you quote him repeatedly, it’s about Mencken & Yourself.
@ yamit82:
How would it not be ‘constructive?’
@ dweller:
Now dweller I was replying directly to Bernard who was characterizing your ever penchant to psychoanalyze everyone you disagree with and then some you agree with, sort of. In that context I added my 2 bits.
I call a spade a spade and if you fit the description I feel no reservation from voicing my own opinion. Everybody fits into some box. The box need not be uniform or geometrically compliant but a box is only the container of what is within it. Sometimes it has stuff in it sometimes like you it’s empty, but a box is just a box. You elevate it or it’s absence into a supreme transcendental value. It’s not.
If you saw me I don’t think you would call me little> 6’2 and 220Lb. Oh, then you must be referring to my cerebellum the thinking or emotive part. Your opinion might be construed as just (pot-Kettle). I stand by my characterizations of you. By your reaction I must be close to the truth.
Everybody has fears, mine are not earthly. I do have deep concerns though but fear? Not me. I was trained to fight and kill dispassionately. How about you? Your fear is that others catch on to you as to what you are. (believer in devils, ghouls and goblins, great lakes of fire etc. :P) So you must fear death. Classical: In a Hobbesian world, man’s actions are taken to avoid a violent death or rather the fear of a violent death. Man was to overcome himself by redefining and recreating who and what he is. Sounds a lot like you dweller.
@ dweller:
It’s not about Mencken, it’s about you. I like you will use any quote within the context I am attempting to convey, identity of an author of quotes not withstanding. If I wanted to bring Mencken into my argument I would have said so and named him in context.
You are full of yourself and as obtuse as any commenter posting on this site.
@ dweller:
Now based on your opinion of me that wouldn’t be very constructive. So why suggest it?
@ yamit82:
How does it ‘cure’ it?
Mencken can be diverting
— until the novelty wears off.
But that happens rather quickly
— once you’ve seen how shallow he can be
whereupon he becomes noticeably tiresome.
Enough already with the quotes, Yamit.
This site is a place for your OWN comments, not somebody else’s.
@ yamit82:
Ask yourself WHY you need to do that, Yamit
— and why you need to have everybody fit into one box or another.
You’re a very little man, Yamit
— a very frightened, very little man.
@ Bernard Ross:
No, Bernard, that’s right; we didn’t.
The boys all wanted to get laid.
But I’m sure you had a point in there somewhere.
When you get around to making it, I’ll probably still be here.
Unless of course the 10-day posting period has elapsed by then.
@ Bernard Ross:
I wondered how long it would take you to pile-on, Bernard.
You certainly didn’t miss your cue.
Actually I “use this approach” when, and only when, I perceive that the shoe fits. How OFTEN that turns out to be is frankly irrelevant; it’s not gratuitous, nor opportunistic.
Not guilty as charged.
Not guilty as charged.
Not guilty as charged.
Not guilty as charged.
Any objective observer who bothered to read your own postings in re mine — as I’ve already suggested to YOU to do, Bernard, on multiple occasions — would readily see that my “amateur psychology” [a true amateur does what he does for the LOVE of it, not for the PAY in it] is indeed directly related to the importance of the substantive arguments.
I’m sure you’d like to believe that. I’m sure that for somebody who enjoys his resentments (as you do) — and who indeed resents being told that they are both wrong AND counterproductive, it must be comforting to take that ‘projection’ gambit. But then, anybody can say pretty much whatever they like.
Like yourself, Bernard?
But then, YOU did enter the fray, didn’t you? — and, as seen, at the earliest opportunity.
@ Bernard Ross:
Short answer: No.
@ Michael Devolin:
Well, one of us most certainly is.
YOU “have absolutely no idea” whether I DO or DON’T have any such idea. You merely assume that I couldn’t.
You’ve CHOSEN to be ‘insulted’ by what YOU assume to be purely ‘assumptions’ on my part.
But on what basis do you maintain them to constitute nothing but ‘assumptions’?
As for true insults, let me assure you, Michael, if ever the time should come that I decide to insult you
— you’ll know it.
Trust me, I haven’t insulted you.
Your fragility is astounding. How long have you been blogging?
— Have you any idea just how mild this site is compared to what’s out there?
Yes, in point of fact, I do — it’s part of my routine before posting — unlike that of some of our other associates on this forum
— who find NO need to read over their remarks before hitting “post.”
Oh? — I hadn’t noticed that.
Seems there are several others here that are far more verbose
— not that that, of itself, is a ‘crime,’ in any case.
So far, Michael, you’ve said that many times; however, I’ve yet to see you illustrate your allegation with any supporting detail.
You’d feel better, then, if I merely believed those articulations to constitute stumbling
— without bothering to say so?
That would be okay by you?
No.
My conscience has left me impervious to pressure.
Strictly your choice, Michael. I’ve always wished you well.
Still do.
@ yamit82:
Then why say it?
— just to be quoting Irish proverbs?
@ yamit82:
And your point would be. . . . uh. . . what?
@ yamit82:
Yes, of course — the immortal words of the man who characterized the Jews as “very plausibly… the most unpleasant race ever heard of…”
Just can’t resist the temptation to go ad hominem, can you?
Okay, you wanna play that game? — we’ll play.
Mencken said nothing about “male” but, rather, “man.”
— (You do understand the difference, I assume?)
In any event, the ladies seem to have never had any difficulty in recognizing the male in me
— not that I ever needed that kind of confirmation for who or what I was.
What’s more, when Mencken used the word, “normal,” he used it as a synonym for normative
— not as a synonym for healthy.
@ yamit82:
I see you incline to quoting from baptized Jews these days. (Fancy that.)
— Rest assured, I promise not to tell your rebbe.
Guess that excludes you.
Not at all.
It is one thing to act from passion
— it is quite another to act while under its direct influence.
I don’t deny a proper role to emotions, not at all. They are, after all, what animate us; they get our attention.
— The root of the word, emotion, is “motion.”
The Difference is that some men have emotions
— and other men are had BY their emotions.
Only if one is being amiable to said sub-human creature strictly for the creature’s sake; THAT is indeed enervating.
OTOH, if one’s amiability is grounded, rather, in personal discipline
— then his nerves are not subject to the aforesaid sub-human or to anything else in his environment, and will remain quite intact.
Ah yes, quite so.
Now if I could only get PresentCompany to believe it
— rather than merely quote it.
@ yamit82:
May you have the sechel to take your own counsel per occasion.
dweller Said:
“Curious & I both DO agree on the value of sanity, and we both reject rudeness.”
dweller:
Umm…”The only cure for contempt is counter-contempt.” I’ll settle for Hate.
@ Bernard Ross:
I think I have dweller diagnosed. Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD)
Some symptoms:
· Excessive fixation with lists, rules and minor details
· Perfectionism that interferes with finishing tasks
· Rigid following of moral and ethical codes
· Unwillingness to assign tasks unless others perform exactly as asked
· Lack of generosity; extreme frugality without reason
A person does not need to have all of these symptoms to have the personality disorder. In short dweller is an egomaniac control freak who will never concede he is not right about anything even when empirical evidence is stacked against him and his stated positions.
He is a master sophist and obfuscator and is prone to use psychobabble and pseudo but(mostly christian)theology to distract from his lack of cogent argument when faced with the plain facts and plain truth. In short his MO, is to wear his opponent down with ” many words” mostly disconnected to the points of contention or argument.
“Cavil” is a suitable term for him as Michael has already determined, I find it interesting the the term Cavil is derived from the Latin: cavillari to jest, cavil, from cavilla raillery; akin to Latin calvi: to deceive… calumny!!
As you are expert in amateur psychology please analyze the following: dweller Said:
But we did not use the same name for boys.
dweller Said:
I notice that you use this approach often. Basically it is a form of character assassination, red herrings, obfuscation and cheap shots. If you linked your amateur psychology to the importance of the actual argument it would go further in making your arguments. As it is now it just points out the opposite. I think that sometimes you are “projecting” your feelings on others:dweller Said:
Assumption or projection? Perhaps they do not enter the fray because they are in agreement. Perhaps they feel the same anger and bitterness but are conditioned by the disingenuous to repress these feelings as being immoral. There are explanations other than yours.
dweller Said:
… Pot, Kettle, black? From this page alone:
dweller Said:
“The truth is that while you may have a ‘nice’ exterior, Michael, you are inwardly SEETHING with bitterness, hatred & resentment. I daresay if you didn’t have boxing as an outlet, the toxins would virtually seep from your pores.”
This is where YOU are 100 per cent wrong, Dweller. You have absolutely no idea who I am, and your assumptions are SO insulting. And I have more dignity (thank G-D I caught myself!) than to go toe-to-toe with you by throwing insults back at you. I said what I had to say. That’s it. Let me finish by saying I weigh my little bits of “vulgarity” as much less injurious than your very public vilifications of me. “Welcome back” indeed (Do you actually read your own posts?).
As for Curious American, he does not exist for me anymore. He is verbosity incarnate. And he’s an anti-Jewish bigot. “Answer not a fool in his folly.”
And you have the floor, Dweller. I would have probably enjoyed your friendship, but you have done nothing but disrespect me and insult me (which would include my wife and children, who have suffered greatly for becoming Noachides) from the beginning, by describing my articuations about Noachism vs Christianity as “stumbling” (that is VERY insulting). Of course, you will never admit this as your ego has left you impervious to shame. As the loggers say up here in the bush, “Go to ‘er!” You don’t exist for me either.