If Americans Knew - U.S. Aid & the Israel/Palestine Conflict

[Jill]

.

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Are you suggesting the government isn't spending my money?

I wasn't and it isn't.

RND wrote:
Look, KP, I see your point. But just as a judge is supposed to be impartial the government is supposed to be as well. This has been a standard "creed" of this country since it's inception. The fact that it has never lived up to this "creed" is neither unexpected nor shocking to me.

Comparing jurisprudence to statecraft is apples and kumquats. So is comparing Israel to Spain. With South Korea, it is more like apples and pears, but then again, we've dumped a load of resources into South Korea over the last sixty years, too.

RND wrote:
For not living up to it's creed expressed by the founding fathers of not engaging in the business of the world?

The founding fathers don't have a claim on me or any other American citizen. We are their inheritors, not their executors. Besides which, the founding fathers engaged a rather different world than ours. More like apples and Bt corn than apples and kumquats.

RND wrote:
Um, aren't we the one's that are supposedly a "Christian" nation? If we're gonna whip out that moniker then the least we could do is act like it.

<< cough >> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

RND wrote:
Using your logic KP if government decided one day to eliminate all the blondes in the country they should be allowed to because, well, it's the government. In using that logic then it's government's decision so then there really shouldn't have been any uproar when the Germans were busy exterminating various religious and ethnic groups like Jews, Seventh-day Adventist's (some of the first to go!) and gypsies because, well, it's government and they know best.

Could you explain how you are using my logic here? (As derived from my posting, please.)

Also, kudos on busting out the Shoah reference. So clever! And another tick for Godwin's Law.

RND wrote:
Someone has to stand in the gap and ask for a little fairness. I have no problem taking the rotten tomatoes. It's expected. I have no problem having people think I don't like Israel because I'm asking for a little fairness. It's expected.

People frequently have an appreciation of "fairness" that is both simplistic and subjective. But that doesn't keep them from feeling righteous in advocating it.

[RND]

Look, KP, I see your point. But just as a judge is supposed to be impartial the government is supposed to be as well. This has been a standard "creed" of this country since it's inception

.

Another "creed" of Christendom is to support the underdog. Without U.S. support, Israel's enemies would have completely destroyed it by now. Many of its enemies have that as their express,foremost purpose.

It is estimated Paidon that Israel has well over 250 nuclear warheads and at least as many delivery systems, i.e. missiles, while her neighbors have -zero- while at the same time it doesn't seem as if the money the US has doled out has been proportionate. Just my take.

[RND]

Another "creed" of Christendom is to support the underdog. Without U.S. support, Israel's enemies would have completely destroyed it by now. Many of its enemies have that as their express,foremost purpose.

I Think of King David. He had a personal council by Nathan, and he also had a High Priest, Zadock. The USA and its "King", I feel, runs without much council from its "Nathans" nor Godly Judgement from its "Zadocks". Once the majority voice of the people becomes currupt, we can readily deduce that it has become both ripe in iniquity (in-equity?) and thus ripe for desruction. This seems evident. Because of any magical or prophetic scripture? No. Because History is constantly repeating itself. We Lazy People.[/quote]

Nice thoughts Karen.

[RND]

I wasn't and it isn't.

As long as I'm pledged for the FRS debt then it is my money.

Comparing jurisprudence to statecraft is apples and kumquats. So is comparing Israel to Spain. With South Korea, it is more like apples and pears, but then again, we've dumped a load of resources into South Korea over the last sixty years, too.

Which explains why NK is dirt poor and SK isn't. "Love your enemies...."

The founding fathers don't have a claim on me or any other American citizen. We are their inheritors, not their executors. Besides which, the founding fathers engaged a rather different world than ours. More like apples and Bt corn than apples and kumquats.

The principals never change.

<< cough >> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

Of which era? 1100's? 1500's? 1600's?

See Revelation 13:11 - Image of the Beast. They got a house of Jupiter, we got a house of Jupiter. They got a Pantheon, we got a Pantheon....

Could you explain how you are using my logic here? (As derived from my posting, please.)

I read from your retort "government can do whatever it wants because well, it's government." That somehow it's "governments money" and just like no one should tell me whether I should buy Thin Mints or Peanut Butter Patties no one should tell them how to spend their money.

Also, kudos on busting out the Shoah reference. So clever! And another tick for Godwin's Law.

Well, if you believe government can do whatever it wants without question why would killing minorities be different? Many times I hear people misquoting Romans 13 it makes me sick. Did God ordain Adolph Hitler? Pope Gregory? Pol Pot? Stalin? Part of this countries problem has always been the duplicity of it's foreign policy.

People frequently have an appreciation of "fairness" that is both simplistic and subjective. But that doesn't keep them from feeling righteous in advocating it.

No doubt. But not in this case. My righteousness is being judged by your idea of fairness. Therefore your righteous "fairness" for Israel, in your mind, is greater than my idea of fairness in eliminating duplicity.

[Jill]

.

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Are you suggesting the government isn't spending my money?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I wasn't and it isn't.

RND wrote:
As long as I'm pledged for the FRS debt then it is my money.

Thy money? Whose image and superscription hath it?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Comparing jurisprudence to statecraft is apples and kumquats. So is comparing Israel to Spain. With South Korea, it is more like apples and pears, but then again, we've dumped a load of resources into South Korea over the last sixty years, too.

RND wrote:
Which explains why NK is dirt poor and SK isn't. "Love your enemies...."

(a) No complex systems involved in landscape design?

(b) Loving one's enemies doesn't mean underwriting their agendas.

(c) Does loving one's enemies mean never letting them suffer or fail? Or never causing them to suffer or to fail?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The founding fathers don't have a claim on me or any other American citizen. We are their inheritors, not their executors. Besides which, the founding fathers engaged a rather different world than ours. More like apples and Bt corn than apples and kumquats.

RND wrote:
The principals never change.

I'll be better poised to respond when you confirm whether you mean "principals" or "principles."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
<< cough >> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

RND wrote:
Of which era? 1100's? 1500's? 1600's?

Take your pick.

RND wrote:
See Revelation 13:11 - Image of the Beast. They got a house of Jupiter, we got a house of Jupiter. They got a Pantheon, we got a Pantheon....

It's a good thing the New Testament is free of classical referents. Oh, wait....

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Could you explain how you are using my logic here? (As derived from my posting, please.)

RND wrote:
I read from your retort "government can do whatever it wants because well, it's government." That somehow it's "governments money" and just like no one should tell me whether I should buy Thin Mints or Peanut Butter Patties no one should tell them how to spend their money.

You read my writ no better than you read scripture. Try again and attempt to derive from the text. Or if you can't bring yourself to do that, consult your interpretive spirit.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Also, kudos on busting out the Shoah reference. So clever! And another tick for Godwin's Law.

RND wrote:
Well, if you believe government can do whatever it wants without question why would killing minorities be different? Many times I hear people misquoting Romans 13 it makes me sick. Did God ordain Adolph Hitler? Pope Gregory? Pol Pot? Stalin? Part of this countries problem has always been the duplicity of it's foreign policy.

(first sentence) See comment above.

(second sentence) I didn't quote Romans 13, so please puke in some other direction.

(final sentence) "Duplicity" has more than one meaning. << pause for chuckle >> Which are you intending here?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
People frequently have an appreciation of "fairness" that is both simplistic and subjective. But that doesn't keep them from feeling righteous in advocating it.

RND wrote:
No doubt. But not in this case. My righteousness is being judged by your idea of fairness. Therefore your righteous "fairness" for Israel, in your mind, is greater than my idea of fairness in eliminating duplicity.

Yes doubt in this case. You wrote: "It is estimated Paidon that Israel has well over 250 nuclear warheads and at least as many delivery systems, i.e. missiles, while her neighbors have -zero- while at the same time it doesn't seem as if the money the US has doled out has been proportionate." A simplistic observation that seems to take little account of the great impracticality of using even a single one of these putative warheads, especially against an aggressive neighboring state with "zero" nuclear capacity (but significant resources for conventional and/or biological warfare), or against an aggressive non-governmental entity with nuclear technology. Beyond this, from the recent major actions in Gaza and southern Lebanon, we can see the limitations of even a well-funded and well-equipped Israeli military; can we imagine the situation if Israel's neighbors were funded and supplied by the United States at a "proportionate" level?

Then again, how are you gauging proportionality? Based upon population and economic advantage? Pray tell.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hey- Is this a "men's only" forum? Are the comments from women welcomed I wonder.... Thank you for you feed back. It's "men only" in some Church meetings. Islam also. Jew also. And thats ok. I can respect that.

I'm only a participant here, and not an administrator; that said, when it comes to participation in this forum, I welcome persons male or female or intersexed or unsexed.

[RND]

Thy money? Whose image and superscription hath it?

Caesar's. But everything belongs to God. If it came from the earth it's His. The FRS pledges my labor and yours as surety against the national debt. Therefore, technically, it's still my money. A "note" simply defines "transfer" of ownership.

(a) No complex systems involved in landscape design?

Of course.

(b) Loving one's enemies doesn't mean underwriting their agendas.

Pro 29:8 Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise [men] turn away wrath.

It is better to give than to receive.

(c) Does loving one's enemies mean never letting them suffer or fail? Or never causing them to suffer or to fail?

Not in my eyes it doesn't.

I'll be better poised to respond when you confirm whether you mean "principals" or "principles."

You know what I meant. Spelling errors do occur.

Take your pick.

So when the "Christians" of Rome used force in the 1500's to coerce confessions out of people that simply believed differently from the hierarchy the hierarchy was acting in a "Christian" manner?

When the "Christians" of New England used force in the 1600's against women that may have acted differently from others the hierarchy was acting in a "Christian" manner when it burned them at the stake?

Have you ever read Greg Boyd's "Myth of a Christian Nation?"

It's a good thing the New Testament is free of classical referents. Oh, wait....

No answer is better than an incoherent one.

You read my writ no better than you read scripture. Try again and attempt to derive from the text. Or if you can't bring yourself to do that, consult your interpretive spirit.

I'll stand by what I read your retort was saying. How does your idea that it's "governments money and they can do with it what they want" differ from it's "governments desire and they can do with it what they want?"

"Old Major" would be proud of you KP!

(first sentence) See comment above.

I'm still waiting for an answer. At what point does government's spending money however they want change in the moral equilibrium?

(second sentence) I didn't quote Romans 13, so please puke in some other direction.

Whoa, simply "uncalled" for. Don't like being compared to the truth unfavorably?

(final sentence) "Duplicity" has more than one meaning. << pause for chuckle >> Which are you intending here?

In the context I used it.

Yes doubt in this case. You wrote: "It is estimated Paidon that Israel has well over 250 nuclear warheads and at least as many delivery systems, i.e. missiles, while her neighbors have -zero- while at the same time it doesn't seem as if the money the US has doled out has been proportionate." A simplistic observation that seems to take little account of the great impracticality of using even a single one of these putative warheads, especially against an aggressive neighboring state with "zero" nuclear capacity (but significant resources for conventional and/or biological warfare), or against an aggressive non-governmental entity with nuclear technology. Beyond this, from the recent major actions in Gaza and southern Lebanon, we can see the limitations of even a well-funded and well-equipped Israeli military; can we imagine the situation if Israel's neighbors were funded and supplied by the United States at a "proportionate" level?

Doubt? Doubt is pondering all the numerous the guarantees that Israel won't one day use it's nuke's on it's neighbors.

Then again, how are you gauging proportionality? Based upon population and economic advantage? Pray tell.

Both.

[Homer]

For what it is worth, our former pastor, now retired, visited Israel. Then he went again, leading a group of tourists. He was pro-Israel until he went a third time, to visit a chidren's school in Ramallah that is run by a missionary. While there, he travelled around with Palistinians and was appalled at how they (and he, because he was with them) were treated by the Isralis.