For which we pay them four billion or so per year.I do disagree. I believe that Israel has been one of the most valuable allies to the US with regard to military and intelligence matters.
True, it's a one sided road for some.
2020 looking better daily.
M-Bob
I do disagree. I believe that Israel has been one of the most valuable allies to the US with regard to military and intelligence matters.
For which we pay them four billion or so per year.
No, the Israelis have never done the US any military favors. Especially not in intelligence, unless it benefited them directly. But even Russia has done that much.
"Ally" means, "I'll be there for you and with you."
England has been a true ally to the US. So has Canada and Australia.
Isreal...no. Not ever.
I’ll be your friend and ally for 10% of that amount.For which we pay them four billion or so per year.
No, what's inevitable is that our relationship with Israel will begin to allow for more criticism of their actions as our policy towards them becomes less motivated by the eschatological fantasies of the Christian Right.fair enough
Perhaps if leftist Democrats are elected, we will start to move away from Israel.
I suppose this is inevitable as the American voter becomes more isolationist. Israel will need to become closer to her other allies, countries like India and South Korea, and probably China and Eastern European countries.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congressso?
Was March 15th close to the time of an election?
Was there a law against admitting those who opposed Obama's Iran policy?
If the answer to both is yes, I can see the parallel.
That right is not absolute, remember?
Opinions can be stated at any time without causing violence or uprisings. If she wants to state an opinion, she can use social media just like everyone else. Everyone will see her opinion.
Object to it as much as you like. It's still a fact.
More important than her own family? If going to Israel for the main purpose of complaining about Israel, then why not go to any state in America instead and complain about what she doesn't like about each one? Nobody will stop her from doing that. But then, maybe that's what she wants???
Think of it this way: If you had a big family that was always having an annual family reunion, and you were someone who always showed up to start arguments with people and you always tried turning people against each other, don't you think the family would eventually not invite you to come anymore? They may even simply tell you that you are no longer invited.
I'd explain it that way if that was what I said my point was.
What does that have to do with anything? That is still the principle she is fighting to protect.
Why do you keep directing this away from the central aspect of free speech? Should you or should you not have the right to go to those states and voice your opinion? Is it acceptable for the government to make your ability to visit your relatives contingent on you not speaking of things they do not like?
False dichotomies are not facts and neither is your opinion of her motivation.
Or we could stick with the case and skip the analogy. Should the government have the power to limit your ability to visit your relatives based on if they like your speech?
Then what is your point Aldebaran?
See post #93 about her stated intentions.
Israel is not a state. It is a sovereign nation with the right to make it's own laws.
Perhaps you don't agree with it, but it's still a fact.
If you're not a citizen of that country, then yes.
That Israel has the right to determine who gets to enter their country.
It appears we have reached the point where some Americans will gladly abandon the principle of free speech for political rivals.
It's better than abandoning national sovereignty. Remember, it's Israel we're talking about. Talib can say whatever she wants against America and Israel while she's here. She should be thankful for that.
I must of missed where anyone attacked their national sovereignty?
Israel has the right as a sovereign nation to decide who gets to enter, and to keep out those who seek to cause problems by encouraging disunity. When she wanted to do that, she wasn't allowed in. When she stated that she just wanted to visit her grandmother, she was allowed in. The rest is up to her. She decided against it. Case closed.
No, when she was required to have her free speech curtailed in order to visit her grandmother she refused.
Let's try some of your logic here.
You can either attack you political rival or support free speech. You have attacked your political rival. Therefore you do not hold free speech to be an important value.
Correct?
Incorrect. If the nation a conservative politician wanted to go to decided to not allow them in because the conservative politician wanted to bad-mouth the nation they were visiting, I'd find that understandable, just as I'd find it understandable if I went to someone's home and started bad-mouthing the family there and ended up getting kicked out on my ear by the owner as a result.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?