Is Netanyahu an American? Is this an American election? It’s meddling. You may not mind it, but it’s meddling. It’s really simple.
OK, so if the nukes aren’t intended as a deterrent to the US, then why should the US get exercised about them? Sounds like Israel’s problem (and maybe some of the Arab nations). The US should not involve itself, it seems to me, if we are to follow your logic.
Somehow you read a definition which clearly shows this isn’t meddling, and then turned it on its head to conclude, yep, meddling. The idea that the US’ reaction to Iran is not a concern of Israel is an absurdity. To claim that someone exercising free speech and speaking during an American election cycle is doing so without the “right” to do so is furtherly absurd.
When you start following along with my logic, I’ll let you know.
Debating their true motive now for developing a nuclear weapon will be moot if we attack them, because then their goal surely will be self-defense. Our method of persuasion so far has been sanctions, say what you will about their effectiveness at least refusing to trade isn’t an offensive action.
Right now there is turmoil within their leadership with many different viewpoints on how to proceed and many different obligations/threats in their sphere. American bombs falling from Israeli planes will focus a diverse nation to one course of action, exactly the one we don’t want.
Maybe you and few more - maybe even heavy majority don’t want it - but it’s really not up to you and that majority.
If success of Iraq war project is any indicator there is no notion of “checks and balances” currently in place in the mechanics of US Government that can prevent attack on Iran.
If it happens it will happen on a reasoning that you wont understand, you may not even appreciate and you and majority of US citizens wont have any tools or methods available to stop it.
Right now, you have a PM of a foreign country telling to a portion of US citizens — over which he know he casts a shadow of influence, otherwise, he would not do it — pretty much saying that you have a POTUS right now who’s not doing what I want him to do so could you please elect a POTUS that I know will do what I want.
It’s happening and there’s nothing you can do.
But, at least, you live in a democracy with freedom of speech where you can say what ever you want…
You seem to have neglected to clarify the numerous odd bits of your previous posts here. The one about the US being a Banana Republic and congressional voting being similar to the Soviet Union. One might just think you were alleging something untoward.
Ooooh, spooky, “a shadow of influence”.
Of course, he might also be someone who has an opinion and is trying to convince Americans to agree with him. But obviously it’s something much more sinister. However, if this person has a “shadow of influence”, why would he have to be in political ads at all? Surely such a powerful figure with a “shadow of influence”, who we must be ever vigilant of, wouldn’t have to use Republican presidential ads to use his influence, right? What with being able to make politicians do what he wants (rather than finding politicians who agree with him.)
What method, by the way, do you suppose he is using to make politicians “do what he wants”?
Someone’s making political comments during a political election cycle where the issues are political… and there’s nothing you can do about it. Dun dun dun!!!
Sends chills down my spine, it does.
Meddling is just a perception of another person’s involvement in a social affair, such as an election. This is common knowledge and encapsulated in the definition. Most people readily understand that foreign powers are overstepping their boundaries when involving themselves in a nation’s election.
Did the US government “over-step” during Israel’s 1992 elections when President Bush made far more negative comments about Shamir than Netanyahu made about Obama, and, for obvious reasons, far more Israeli voters care about the opinion of the American President than American voters care about the opinions of the Israeli PM.
When someone spends money to persuade you to vote for war candidate it’s usually called a “war mongering” and the person persuading a “warmonger”.
Cue in semantics brigade… 3… 2… 1…
:rolleyes:
Bush was criticizing re: Ilegal Settlements which was totally in his domain to do.
Some think it was a bad move that led to his loss of 2nd Presidential bid - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627_4.html
Bush repeatedly made it clear that he wouldn’t deal with Shamir and that if the Israelis wanted a better relationship with the US to choose a different leader. This was something exploited by Yitzhak Rabin in his successful campaign to remove Shamir. Your link even notes that Shamir was voted out because “Israeli voters blamed Shamir for overplaying his hand.”
As for the idea that his stance on Israel cost Bush re-election? Please.
Anyone who believes that is either willfully blind, paranoid about Jewish influence, or completely ignorant of the 1992 election.
George H. W. Bush has spoken repeatedly about his presidency and loss and he never once made that claim.
Ooo do I see a split developing between money-conservatives and military-conservatives? Please tell us more. I’ll go get Orville.
You should re-read the article I cited.
Also, take a look (real part starts@ 2:15) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1R_2GeuAA
90% rating in 1991 and lose election?
Since both of us cannot be “willfully blind” I’m okay with the label.
It’s more like punching a rhino, it having no effect, and then buying a gun for protection because the rhino trampled your children and flattened the village next door.
You are wrong on several counts, Inbred. As you cited the definition I thought you’d care what it meant. The denotation clearly shows that it’s not meddling if one has the right to act in that context, and free speech guarantees that right, and if it’s a matter in which they have valid concern. As such, people can’t “understand” that it’s meddling, since it aint. They can, however, feel that it’s meddling. Or, if you want to talk about the “common knowledge encapsulated in the definition”, what’s really going on is that they’re using a connotation of meddling. Or, in other words, they’re just saying that they don’t like Netanyahu’s opinions being voiced in an American medium. Which is fine, but that doesn’t make it meddling.
I don’t know all the details, but from what I read of it, I would not be surprised if there were Israelis who found Bush to be meddling. I am sure those Israelis who found it aversive were disproportionately in favor of their settlement activities. Not that I give a shit nor understand what point it is you think you are making.
I’ve had my fill of war-mongering assholes making speeches about imaginary life or death scenarios in my country for the remainder of the century. Netanyahu is unwelcome here as far as I am concerned, especially when he opens his mouth. In general I hope some other forces will someday dominate Israeli politics but until then I’d be glad to not hear from any of them.
Gosh, I wonder why Bush Sr. had such a high approval rating in 1991 but lost the election next year. Oh wait, your youtube link is to “George Bush Sr. Postwar Speech.” His extremely high temporary approval rating couldn’t have anything to do with just decisively winning the war with Iraq with full UN backing and approval and minimal loss of US soldiers lives. His falling numbers over the next year must obviously have been the Jew’s fault.
It’d be the punctuation, here, that matters. I wonder if the apostrophe comes before or after the S. Hopefully newcomer will elaborate on his perception that American voting is “Soviet” style or exactly what this “Shadow of Influence” is like.
I’ve said all that, repeatedly. I just am an adult, aware of my opinions and biases, and not shy of using the word “meddling” when it is clearly appropriate. I think Netanyahu is lying scum as well. Maybe I will go tell an Israeli about it and start some meddling.
That’s the issue though, it’s emotionally manipulative and an incorrect use of the word. There’s significant daylight between 'I don’t like that politicians and I think he should stick a rotten potato in his face and shut the fuck up" and “His comments, about an issue that concerns his nation and which are allowed via free speech, they’re meddling!”