Well that was a speech I couldn't imagine any GOP candidate being able to make

[FarLeftFist]

Or even comprehend. Watching Pres. Obama's speech to the U.N. I kept thinking how I cannot imagine that speech to the international community being done by Bachmann or Perry or any of the other neanderthals running for GOP candidate. I don't think these people would even begin to understand foreign policy and world affairs in the same scope as Obama does. Another reason to reject the fright-wing in 2012 and forever.

[no limit]

1. Speech might have been different. But result would have been identical

still no statehood for Palestine eventhough Obama made repeated promises that this was his goal. When it's time to put up or shut up as usual he backed away.

[FarLeftFist]

2. I don't think he backed away, he put it in their hands. Peace isn't that simple.

[no limit]

6. Peace isn't. But giving them statehood in this case was perfectly simple

It was up for a vote and it was something almost everyone around the world supported. Yet once again we decided what is best for the palestinian people instead of allowing them to do it. Which is a bit ironic given all the themes of democracy and freedom throughout his speech.

So like I said, you are absolutely right. A GOP candidate would have given a different speech. But in the end the result would have been identical. So if you like speeches cool, but I much rather have results.

[FarLeftFist]

9. wasn't the result supposed to be a return to 1967 borders?

Didn't Netanyahu practically laugh out loud at the proposal?

[no limit]

16. Netanyahu will laugh at any proposal.

Giving them statehood based on those borders would give the palestinian people much greater standing in any future negotiations on what the borders should actually be. Yes, Israel would never accept those borders, but atleast the Palestinian people would be in a much greater position to negotiate. Just this vote alone finally made Israel supportive of direct talks, something they have not been wanting to do.

[asjr]

12. The Israelis and Palestinians need

to do it together. They must decide what is best for each other.

[no limit]

14. How well has that approach worked in the last 60 years?

You know what the definition of insanity is, right?

[L. Coyote]

22. State/Nation or Concentration Camp? Should be an easy question for Israel! n/t

[Bandit]

7. Put it in whose hands?

The State Dept has stated if the UN puts this before the Security Council the USA will veto it....The Palistinians had their land taken from them in 1947. They just want a little of it back so they can form their own State...It could possibly be just as simple as that to obtain Peace....

[FarLeftFist]

10. A vote won't equal peace. If it was only that simple.

[no limit]

17. What harm does it do to the peace process to give them statehood?

[hedgehog]

5. Hmmm..... Have the UN declare statehood now and watch another 30 years of war

or insist that the parties come to the table and negotiate statehood with a viable chance for peace....


nope, can't see any benefit at all to the second option.....

:eyes:

[no limit]

8. I see, so by not allowing Palestinians to have basic rights we avoided war?

Can you please explain why them not having statehood improves the situation in any way?

[FarLeftFist]

13. Because it leaves the current borders in place and open for negotiations.

As opposed to a mandated border which would most likely escalate violence further.

[no limit]

19. Giving them statehood would in no way end negotiations. Any proof for your allegation?

That it would lead to more war? Please, explain the thought process you are using to make that statement.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Some criticisms of Obama are fair

This isn't one of them. :thumbsdown:

[no limit]

18. You care to exaplin that statement in any more detail?

Or is your idea of a valid argument the thumbs down emoticon?

[BeyondGeography]

20. You are advocating political stupidity on every level

Figure it out for yourself.

[no limit]

21. I know you are but what am I?

Grow up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. But could you have a beer with him?

that's all some people, unfortunately, think about when choosing a President. :banghead: Haven't heard the speech yet but I bet it was intelligent and thoughtful as usual.

[HappyMe]

4. Agreed. nt

[CarmanK]

11. Obviously Perry would Not, he executed a Foreign National

who was denied his rights to contact the Mexican council. And Perry allowed the execution of the Foreign national, inspite of the pleas for leniency from around the world. Perry is a TX cowboy, his world is TX and TX like. He said in his book, he believes in states' rights, where like minded people come together to live. He prefers TX and has no use for the people of MA and their ilk.
He can only get along with those who agree with him. Can you imagine the chaos in foreign policy is such a short sighted, narrow viewed individual were entrusted to secure the future of 300 mn people most of whom do not agree with him??

[newspeak]

23. actually when I think of texas

I like to think of molly ivins, ann richards, jim hightower, willie nelson. Little boots was no texan and Perry is the worse kind.

[JDPriestly]

24. Obama's strength is foreign affairs. I disagree with him on his war efforts.

But otherwise he is great.

[Raschel]

25. Totally agree. His intelligence is amazing.