Trump’s Plans Would Increase US Debt Significantly More than Harris’s, Study Finds

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

16 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Indeed. Thanks for the first-hand info.

 

way off topic and bears absolutely no relation to the issue of the new Administrations choice for Ambassador to Israel.

 

Gratuitous.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

Trump has already revealed himself and his Administration to be Bad Faith Actors on the issue of Palestine. By making such obviously one sided statements about the UN vote and related issues, he has poisoned the well. Why bother to talk to such obviously biased, prejudiced and bigoted interlocutors. The best thing to hope for is that the Right Wing lunacy is not too inflammatory.

 

All the chattering about one state, two state, moral equivalency between Fatah, Hamas, Israel is quite meaningless until it is acknowledged that there are two parties to this dispute that need to agree and that an agreement has to satisfy both parties. Denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinians is clearly not productive no matter how satisfying the prospect of a Blood and Glory resolution under the newly primped and coiffed Sheriff would be in the febrile dreams of the Right Wing mob.

[bandito]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The Yom Kippur war took place in 1973. The 1967 war is also known as the six-days war. In the latter Israel conquered all of the Sinai Peninsula, but did not make much of a headway into Egypt proper. It was in the 1973 war that Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal, and were about a 100 km from Cairo. On both occasions, Dayan was the Minister of Defense, rather than the general at the front.

 

If present day warfare was as straightforward as these wars were, then yes - Israel could handle pretty much most existing threats. The thing is that warfare changed since then - and the distinction between front and home front is murkier. That's without getting into the diplomatic and economic costs of war.

 

Aah, you're right it was '73.

I am an old man so excuse me for facts not getting straight, sorry, top floor is not what it was.

I was a seaman on Israeli ships in both wars, Zim Lines and Atid cargo Lines.

The Israel army crossed the Suez Canal and the Egyptian army ran as fast they could exept for one unit who got surrounded by the Israelies and surrendered.

Israeli army was 60 km from Cairo but got orders to retreat under vehemently protesting from Moshe Dayan who wanted to invade Cairo and make an end to the trouble with the Arabs once and for all.

Also the Arabs did, and still do, not allow Israeli ships to use the Suez Canal.

This is from memory and I'm sure Google knows better.

Happy Hanukah.

[metisdead]

A nonsense baiting post has been removed. 

[Donutz]

To me it doesn't make any sense at all that a president picks the positions for leading civil servant positions. It should simply me appointing ministers and secretaries and nothing else. Picking ambassadors, supreme court judges, heads of *something*... only opens the way to political biased or motivated people in these top positions based on things such as earning favours of the political elite, rich etc. Rather than more or less neutral civil servants who earned those positions due to excellent track records and years of experience. With such a silly system I'd expect a debate on any person that obviously wasn't picked based on an excellent CV. And Id expect even more debate on how the hell the country could prevent people being granted nice positions based on ties with the rich, political elite, political views etc.