Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link.

Comments:

Preparation for an Iranian campaign?

I can't think of a worse use of our money at this point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I can't think of a worse use of our money at this point.

I think it's just a ploy to appeal to the right for a re-election resume.

Where are the origins of this request? How often does the Israeli government ask for aid? How often will it get an opportunity to pass by the White House for a sig or veto? How often is something like this occurring right around a presidential reelection?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think it's just a ploy to appeal to the right for a re-election resume.

Where are the origins of this request? How often does the Israeli government ask for aid? How often will it get an opportunity to pass by the White House for a sig or veto? How often is something like this occurring right around a presidential reelection?

I think the real issue is the appropriations committee giving them even more than they asked for (though for all I know that's standard in international relations).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think the real issue is the appropriations committee giving them even more than they asked for (though for all I know that's standard in international relations).

Well, I snapped into a slim-jim before I replied so I know my thoughts are organized.

Basically, the GOP voters were criticizing Obama about being weak on support for Israel. Conveniently, Obama is getting a chance to prove them "wrong".


I'm pretty sure this all goes back to the White House. Every president does this shit to get elected a second time. I could be wrong, of course but it seems waaaaaaaay to coincidental.


"You're anti-israel and you're weak with supporting one of my allies!"

"I signed a missile defense bill for them that gave them more money than they asked for. You were saying?"

Originally posted by dadudemon
"You're anti-israel and you're weak with supporting one of my allies!"

"I signed a missile defense bill for them that gave them more money than they asked for. You were saying?"

What the average Republican/Neo-Con/Rightist/Tea-Bagger would think but not say to that follow-up question: "Yeah, but you're still a n!gger."

Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system.

I ****ing wish. If leftists' fantasies about Republican racism were all true, you have no idea how much fonder of the Republican party I would be.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I ****ing wish. If leftists' fantasies about Republican racism were all true, you have no idea how much fonder of the Republican party I would be.

Unfortunately it's not a "fantasy", the bigotry exist, get your head out of the sand.

As far as you being such a proponent of racism, that's just sad, man.

Originally posted by Robtard
What the average Republican/Neo-Con/Rightist/Tea-Bagger would think but not say to that follow-up question: "Yeah, but you're still a n!gger."

Then Obama would say, "Yeah, but black men are still higher up the social ladder than white women. Ain't that right, Hillary? BOOYA!"

Originally posted by Robtard
Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system.

You must be rich.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You must be rich.

Unfortunately no, but the "for a missile defense system" part was important.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think it's just a ploy to appeal to the right for a re-election resume.

Where are the origins of this request? How often does the Israeli government ask for aid? How often will it get an opportunity to pass by the White House for a sig or veto? How often is something like this occurring right around a presidential reelection? It didn't even mention the president. It's not a ploy at all but rather a response to the GOP's desires. The House of Rep's appropriations committee is mostly GOP, so they want to do what their constituency wants them to do. This seems reasonable to me, because they're just doing their jobs as representatives. The fact that anyone would jump down the president's throat for what a GOP committee in congress did shows that the president has very little chance of getting reelected in my opinion.
As for the act itself, Iran has been found to be building nuclear weapons, and they don't seem to be deterred whatsoever by economic sanctions. Israel is our ally and the United States fought in WWII partially in order to establish Israel as a sovereign nation. To recant on that, even in the face of an economic crisis is weak and foolish in the long run, because Israel is one of our closest allies. It hurts economically, and I know that that's the main concern that determines whether a president gets reelected or not, but I think that it's the right thing to do either way, and I don't consider myself a republican or a conservative at all.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
It didn't even mention the president.

The article does not need to mention the president because we already know know that all bills passed in the house and senate go back...



Originally posted by dadudemon
...to the White House for a sig or veto...



And bills can be heavily influenced or even pushed by the President in the US. Remember the bailout legislation and how Obama was pushing for it to get passed? He demanded a "bill on my desk" before a certain date to be signed.


Originally posted by Robtard
Unfortunately no, but the "for a missile defense system" part was important.

Unfortunately no, but the "you must be rich" part which referenced the entire statement "Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system" was important. You'd have to know how much a MDS costs and then think of 236 million dollars as nothing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The article does not need to mention the president because we already know know that all bills passed in the house and senate go back...







And bills can be heavily influenced or even pushed by the President in the US. Remember the bailout legislation and how Obama was pushing for it to get passed? He demanded a "bill on my desk" before a certain date to be signed.




Unfortunately no, but the "you must be rich" part which referenced the entire statement "Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system" was important. You'd have to know how much a MDS costs and then think of 236 million dollars as nothing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, frankly I'm against the president having so much control over congress as it seriously ****s up the balance of power, but that's beside the point. What evidence is there that the president was pushing for a doubling of the amount of money going to Israel? I mean, sure he didn't veto it but that's a weak defense for your claim that he was essentially behind the increase. All that proves is that he was okay with it, which doesn't show that he's all gung-ho for supporting Israel, but rather that he just isn't against it.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Yeah, yeah, yeah, frankly I'm against the president having so much control over congress as it seriously ****s up the balance of power, but that's beside the point. What evidence is there that the president was pushing for a doubling of the amount of money going to Israel? I mean, sure he didn't veto it but that's a weak defense for your claim that he was essentially behind the increase. All that proves is that he was okay with it, which doesn't show that he's all gung-ho for supporting Israel, but rather that he just isn't against it.

That's what I was asking for:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where are the origins of this request? How often does the Israeli government ask for aid? How often will it get an opportunity to pass by the White House for a sig or veto? How often is something like this occurring right around a presidential reelection?

Those are the items I need to connect the dots. It seems too convenient to the incumbent president. Obama gets a massive blacklash for his non-zionist approach to Israel and he suddenly gets the opportunity to prove his support with a nice large sum of money? You'll find that such coincidences are hardly coincidences on Capitol Hill. These not conspiracies: it is just good politics. Obama would be an idiot to not support that bill...well, at least if he wants to be reelected. If it were Ron Paul in the White House, he wouldn't sign it (lol).

If you want to believe that Obama was not involved with this bill, you can.

But let's just google search, shall we? BRB


It's in the very article posted in the opening post.

"According to the report, the House and Senate’s Committees on Appropriations approved the aid following a request by the U.S. Administration to approve aid totaling $106.1 million for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic long-range air defense system, for the program to improve the basic capabilities of the Arrow systems, and for the David’s Sling mid-range anti-missile system.

Both Appropriations Committees went far beyond the request, the report noted, and raised the amount of aid from $129 million to $235.7 million in 2012, Globes noted. The report is based on information first published on the Inside Defense website."


So it's right there: the Obama Administration requested the bill get started.


Double edit -

It's right here, as well:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Apparently, Obama approved/pushed $3 billion in support...not just the Arrow 3 system.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately no, but the "you must be rich" part which referenced the entire statement "Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system" was important. You'd have to know how much a MDS costs and then think of 236 million dollars as nothing.

Incorrect again. I know a single F-22 cost about 150mil(FA cost), so considering that, an entire missile defense system for less than the price of two F-22s does seem like a small amount.

But I suspect your motives here are spawned due the the other thread. Oh well, old wounds, eh.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
As for the act itself, Iran has been found to be building nuclear weapons, and they don't seem to be deterred whatsoever by economic sanctions. Israel is our ally and the United States fought in WWII partially in order to establish Israel as a sovereign nation. To recant on that, even in the face of an economic crisis is weak and foolish in the long run, because Israel is one of our closest allies. It hurts economically, and I know that that's the main concern that determines whether a president gets reelected or not, but I think that it's the right thing to do either way, and I don't consider myself a republican or a conservative at all.

I have a hard time seeing it as the "right" thing to do. From a position of realpolitik its the practical thing to do. You can't turn your back on an ally and expect the others not to take notice. Morally, however, and in the long term pragmatically, Israel is a rather exploitative and militaristic ally.

Israel is that friend you never go clubbing with because you just know he'll get bumped into, freak out and glass someone in the face.

And you know you'll have to step in and help him when the guy's buddies start swarming.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect again. I know a single F-22 cost about 150mil(FA cost), so considering that, an entire missile defense system for less than the price of two F-22s does seem like a small amount.

But I suspect your motives here are spawned due the the other thread. Oh well, old wounds, eh. Aren't F-22s also not very cost-effective as well?

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect again. I know a single F-22 cost about 150mil(FA cost), so considering that, an entire missile defense system for less than the price of two F-22s does seem like a small amount.

But I suspect your motives here are spawned due the the other thread. Oh well, old wounds, eh.


You say "an entire missile defense system" when missile defense systems are not nearly as complicated or technology rich as an F-22. They track heat signatures and fire super fast rockets to intercept and destroy. That's just one of the many technologies in the F-22. If you consider that the US appropriated..what...$30 billion for our own Missile Defense system, then the $235 million seems to be inappropriately high: our land area and border distances are waaaaaaaaay more than israel's. In other words, when you said the following:

"Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system."


You were either very rich or did not know that that was an expensive price-tag for such a small country on a MDS.



And not sure why you want to make things personal. Did "focus4chumps" get to you? Don't listen to him: I was not after your chicken nuggets.


Originally posted by NemeBro
Aren't F-22s also not very cost-effective as well?

Indeed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You say "an entire missile defense system" when missile defense systems are not nearly as complicated or technology rich as an F-22. They track heat signatures and fire super fast rockets to intercept and destroy. That's just one of the many technologies in the F-22. If you consider that the US appropriated..what...$30 billion for our own Missile Defense system, then the $235 million seems to be inappropriately high: our land area and border distances are waaaaaaaaay more than israel's. In other words, when you said the following:

"Though 236mil seems like nothing for a missile defense system."


You were either very rich or did not know that that was an expensive price-tag for such a small country on a MDS.

And not sure why you want to make things personal. Did "focus4chumps" get to you? Don't listen to him: I was not after your chicken nuggets.


K.

Other way around. Who now?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Israel is that friend you never go clubbing with because you just know he'll get bumped into, freak out and glass someone in the face.

And you know you'll have to step in and help him when the guy's buddies start swarming.

Funny.

Actually been clubbing with Israelis many a time back when I used to go to clubs; that analogy is about accurate,

Originally posted by Robtard
K.

Is this a real "k, I see where you are coming from" or is this the Robtard "K, because I don't want to talk about this anymore" tactic?

Originally posted by Robtard
Other way around.


Other way around to what? You're after MY chicken nuggets? Not cool: I buy them for my kids because they don't taste good to me so you'll be essentially taking them from kids.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this a real "k, I see where you are coming from" or is this the Robtard "K, because I don't want to talk about this anymore" tactic?




Other way around to what? You're after MY chicken nuggets? Not cool: I buy them for my kids because they don't taste good to me so you'll be essentially taking them from kids.

The sensible person's "K", ie 'There's no reason to say anything further as it will serve no purpose."

THEY'RE ALL RACISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SUPPORT OBAMA BY THE WAY I HAVE TEN PENISES IN MY MOUTH ALL AT ONCE

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Israel is that friend you never go clubbing with because you just know he'll get bumped into, freak out and glass someone in the face.

And you know you'll have to step in and help him when the guy's buddies start swarming. That's a good aphorism.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
THEY'RE ALL RACISTS BECAUSE... I HAVE TEN PENISES IN MY MOUTH ALL AT ONCE Knew it.

D'OH THEM JEWBOYS!!!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
THEY'RE ALL RACISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SUPPORT OBAMA BY THE WAY I HAVE TEN PENISES IN MY MOUTH ALL AT ONCE

Obviously not, but to deny that it isn't an issue concerning Obama is both foolish and dishonest. Easy, fella.

I'm not sure Zeal is really an anti-semite, I'm starting to think he's just a misanthrope who hates jews in particular.

I am a nationalist.

For which nation? Israel?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I am a nationalist.
...Socialist?

Godwin'ed

Zing!

No surpirse since most congressmen are bought off and paid for by Israel.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No surpirse since most congressmen are bought off and paid for by Israel.

Better them then us.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...Socialist?

Godwin'ed


Good one