https://www.newsweek.com/biden...able-opinion-1898978

https://www.reuters.com/world/...ivilians-2024-05-08/

https://www.politico.com/news/...nior-moment-00157090

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09...netanyahu/index.html

I mean, if withholding congressionally approved funds, regardless of impact, was impeachable under Trump, i would expect EVERYONE that vote FOR impeachment under that would be chomping at the bit to vote for impeachment under Biden .. and perhaps even the same impeachment managers would try and have biden impeached.. and every senator that for for impeachment under trump would also vote aye...


i wish this was satire -- it's worse, it's party over country -

the "left" decided to try an impeach a president over impairing delivery (it made the deadline) for withholding aid funds, shouldn't they try and do the same under THEIR side being "guilty" of what they considered an impeachable offense?

Step up and own it .. if you don't support impeachment for the SAME thing (no, i won't bother hearing "false equality (sp)" on this) then you are a hypocrite, if you do support it, then you should be calling your congressmen

and yes, this is meant to be a pot stirring post .. rise up or be known as a lying hypocrite

I did not believe, and stayed on here, that President Trump warranted impeachment over Ukraine aide. I agreed w censure.

I also do not know if the Bill passed gives discretion to the President to distribute certain items.

Assuming the bill (I know it is an Act) does not, my vote would still be censure.

However, I cannot dispute that impeachment votes are valid assuming the bill gave no discretion.

Is Biden blackmailing Bibi? Holding up the aid until Bibi comes up with some dirt on Trump?

Equivalent? Not really.....

Worse…he endangering the lives of young men in the IDF — men who believed in America (much like young Rhodesian men of the late 1970s). Soldiers who make up the fighting force of our strongest most reliable ally in the Middle East. What a POS Biden is.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Worse…he endangering the lives of young men in the IDF — men who believed in America (much like young Rhodesian men of the late 1970s). Soldiers who make up the fighting force of our strongest most reliable ally in the Middle East. What a POS Biden is.

Seems the world may have had enough of Palestinian civilian deaths.

I don't think the situation is near as black and white as you do.

No, the issue isn't black and white. The Constitution gives the president power over foreign affairs.

I don't know if that power includes the ability to withhold foreign aid approved by Congress.

I find it weird the OP finds everything the Democrats do weird. He should know there is quite a difference between doing something to save innocent lives and doing that thing to get dirt on a political opponent.

Normal, non-weird people would see a difference. Hence the original post really does push a false equivalency.

I believe the Jackson Concurrence covers this. Unless, the Act gives discretion, the President cannot deny to follow an Act of Congress.

Had Congress had not acted, the President has more leeway.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Congress can authorize or refuse to permit the Executive to sell or give arms to other nations.

New, the President could have advocated for discretion or conditions in the bill.

I would have been adamant that I would veto any bill that mandated arms sells or deliveries to a government with Netanyahu as part of the government. That is my position. That is not what Congress did, and the President signed it. He is bound to follow it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Worse…he endangering the lives of young men in the IDF — men who believed in America (much like young Rhodesian men of the late 1970s). Soldiers who make up the fighting force of our strongest most reliable ally in the Middle East. What a POS Biden is.

Republicans President and Supreme Allied Commander, Eisenhower did not treat Israel as a strategic ally, but saw the U.S. role as one of “fair moderator” between Arabs and Israel. That is the position we need to keep.

Rhodesia’s fell because the government was inequitable. The Europeans did not transition to affective and just self-rule. This created the environment for socialist_nationalist movement. Yiu would not agree to Democrats having X percent of the seats in the legislature. Why should black Zimbabweans agree to give whites X percent of the legislature that amounted to a legislative veto by the minority?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I believe the Jackson Concurrence covers this. Unless, the Act gives discretion, the President cannot deny to follow an Act of Congress.

Had Congress had not acted, the President has more leeway.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Congress can authorize or refuse to permit the Executive to sell or give arms to other nations.

New, the President could have advocated for discretion or conditions in the bill.

I would have been adamant that I would veto any bill that mandated arms sells or deliveries to a government with Netanyahu as part of the government. That is my position. That is not what Congress did, and the President signed it. He is bound to follow it.

Thats Regime Change. You advocate for regime change.
I think that's a trip.

What I really like about this situation is the tried and true American tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gaza, the Palestinians DBA Hamas attack Israel.

Israel defends itself, counterattacks in an effort to defeat and destroy the aggressor and it's staunchest ally, (us,) moves to cut them off at the knees before victory can be secured.

Hamas continues it's tried and true tradition of using its own civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield for its terrorism and nobody, no one in The West, East, North or South lifts an eyebrow.

Who wins here? Who really loves you America?!?!?!?!?! Right! The Islamic Terrorists Baby! ISIS, the Taliban, Hamas, those guys up in Lebanon I can't think of their name,......
Those Somali guys, all of Iran,...... Hooray for Uncle Sam! Waffling again. Hooray for America still not able to see through a war against Islamic terrorists not years long, but short months and the USA ain't even fighting it!
Booyah!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I believe the Jackson Concurrence covers this. Unless, the Act gives discretion, the President cannot deny to follow an Act of Congress.

Had Congress had not acted, the President has more leeway.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Congress can authorize or refuse to permit the Executive to sell or give arms to other nations.

New, the President could have advocated for discretion or conditions in the bill.

I would have been adamant that I would veto any bill that mandated arms sells or deliveries to a government with Netanyahu as part of the government. That is my position. That is not what Congress did, and the President signed it. He is bound to follow it.

Thats Regime Change. You advocate for regime change.
I think that's a trip.

U have answered this critique before. The U.S. has no obligation to, short of treaties, to support any government, or its head.

Netanyahu has permitted the funding of Hamas to prevent a moderate party. This, making a two state peace impossible. But for his return to power, he would have been tried for corruption in Israel. By allowing funding to Hamas, he has direct responsibility for the barbaric attack by Hamas. He uses and funds tensions between Israel and the Arbs to stay in power.

Again, the President signed the bill. Assuming, the bill did not provide the Executive discretion, he is bound to it.

No, I do not support Netanyahu or his government as formed.

No, I do not advocate removing him by force. Technically, such an act would appear to violate international law.

That does not mean the U.S. has some obligation to keep Netanyahu in a position of strength.

Israel is not Netanyahu.

We have no constitutional duty to fund Netanyahu’s regime. It is bad policy to do so.

However, Congress has spoken, the President signed the bill, and the appointment made by Congress must be followed as the now law dictates.

Should Biden make public the recording of the "perfect phone call" where trump attempted to extort Zelensky into digging up dirt on Biden?

I say hey trump if you're such a good choice you shouldn't need to resort to that kind of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I believe the Jackson Concurrence covers this. Unless, the Act gives discretion, the President cannot deny to follow an Act of Congress.

Had Congress had not acted, the President has more leeway.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Congress can authorize or refuse to permit the Executive to sell or give arms to other nations.

New, the President could have advocated for discretion or conditions in the bill.

I would have been adamant that I would veto any bill that mandated arms sells or deliveries to a government with Netanyahu as part of the government. That is my position. That is not what Congress did, and the President signed it. He is bound to follow it.

Thats Regime Change. You advocate for regime change.
I think that's a trip.

U have answered this critique before. The U.S. has no obligation to, short of treaties, to support any government, or its head.

Netanyahu has permitted the funding of Hamas to prevent a moderate party. This, making a two state peace impossible. But for his return to power, he would have been tried for corruption in Israel. By allowing funding to Hamas, he has direct responsibility for the barbaric attack by Hamas. He uses and funds tensions between Israel and the Arbs to stay in power.

Again, the President signed the bill. Assuming, the bill did not provide the Executive discretion, he is bound to it.

No, I do not support Netanyahu or his government as formed.

No, I do not advocate removing him by force. Technically, such an act would appear to violate international law.

That does not mean the U.S. has some obligation to keep Netanyahu in a position of strength.

Israel is not Netanyahu.

We have no constitutional duty to fund Netanyahu’s regime. It is bad policy to do so.

However, Congress has spoken, the President signed the bill, and the appointment made by Congress must be followed as the now law dictates.

Israel fairly and squarely elected N and youd withhold war funding to our ally during a war to remove a sovereign nations elected "Ruler".
That certainly is regime change by force, lie to yourself all you want but we see thru it.

The parallels between Trump and Biden are there.

Trump played games with Ukraine to get his political agenda advanced. The democrats objected.

Biden plays games with Israel to get his political agenda forwarded and the republicans object.

I would have no bad faith argument nor objection if Congress holds impeachment votes on the matter. That assumes the Act did not provide discretion.

Like with President Trump, I do not see impeachment as the proper remedy. I see censure as the remedy. That does not mean impeachment is not a rational response. Again, assuming the Act did not give discretion.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
I believe the Jackson Concurrence covers this. Unless, the Act gives discretion, the President cannot deny to follow an Act of Congress.

Had Congress had not acted, the President has more leeway.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Congress can authorize or refuse to permit the Executive to sell or give arms to other nations.

New, the President could have advocated for discretion or conditions in the bill.

I would have been adamant that I would veto any bill that mandated arms sells or deliveries to a government with Netanyahu as part of the government. That is my position. That is not what Congress did, and the President signed it. He is bound to follow it.

Thats Regime Change. You advocate for regime change.
I think that's a trip.

U have answered this critique before. The U.S. has no obligation to, short of treaties, to support any government, or its head.

Netanyahu has permitted the funding of Hamas to prevent a moderate party. This, making a two state peace impossible. But for his return to power, he would have been tried for corruption in Israel. By allowing funding to Hamas, he has direct responsibility for the barbaric attack by Hamas. He uses and funds tensions between Israel and the Arbs to stay in power.

Again, the President signed the bill. Assuming, the bill did not provide the Executive discretion, he is bound to it.

No, I do not support Netanyahu or his government as formed.

No, I do not advocate removing him by force. Technically, such an act would appear to violate international law.

That does not mean the U.S. has some obligation to keep Netanyahu in a position of strength.

Israel is not Netanyahu.

We have no constitutional duty to fund Netanyahu’s regime. It is bad policy to do so.

However, Congress has spoken, the President signed the bill, and the appointment made by Congress must be followed as the now law dictates.

Israel fairly and squarely elected N and youd withhold war funding to our ally during a war to remove a sovereign nations elected "Ruler".
That certainly is regime change by force, lie to yourself all you want but we see thru it.[/QUOTE

Yes, unless Congres passed an appropriations bill mandated and not allowing discretion. They would have done so over my veto.

Reasons previously given. We have no constitutional requirement to support Netanyahu’s regime, nor his shenanigans in creating this mess.

Assuming a bill giving me no discretion as president, overriding veto, I would follow the legislative direction of Congress pursuant to the Jackson Concurrence. Congress has duly acted.

That is the legitimate operation of our system. It is the opposite of being a ruler.

It is your issue, you cannot understand basic civics.

Even the POTUS this he should be impeached

quote:

Originally posted by Joe_Biden:
President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor. It's the definition of quid pro quo.

This is no joke—Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/s.../1185371953869271042

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would have no bad faith argument nor objection if Congress holds impeachment votes on the matter. That assumes the Act did not provide discretion.

Like with President Trump, I do not see impeachment as the proper remedy. I see censure as the remedy. That does not mean impeachment is not a rational response. Again, assuming the Act did not give discretion.

How many Acts of giving aid allow discretion on the part of the President?

Biden is just following the lead of several GOP Presidents, even St. Reagan could only stomach some much civilian carnage

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bid...ident-172558453.html

President Reagan refused side to Israel over Lebanon.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would have no bad faith argument nor objection if Congress holds impeachment votes on the matter. That assumes the Act did not provide discretion.

Like with President Trump, I do not see impeachment as the proper remedy. I see censure as the remedy. That does not mean impeachment is not a rational response. Again, assuming the Act did not give discretion.

How man Acts of giving aid involve discretion on the part of the President?

I am sorry. I am having a bit of trouble comprehending your question.

Are you asking me how the President should act assuming the law gives the president discretion?

If that is question, my answer is within the judgement of the man elected to use the discretion. If Congress does not like it, Congress can pass a law to restrict it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President Reagan refused side to Israel over Lebanon.

And Eisenhower did the same over Israel's actions in the Sinai.

The Israelis should not expect a blank, unconditional check from Uncle Sam.

We have our own interests that don't always run congruent with Israel's. Israel is a big boy, should be able to take care of itself.

Israel is single largest recipient of US foreign aid ever, 300 billion dollars when adjusted for inflation.

https://www.cfr.org/article/us...ilitary%20assistance.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President Reagan refused side to Israel over Lebanon.

And Eisenhower did the same over Israel's actions in the Sinai.

Yes, Eisenhower did not treat Israel as a strategic ally. He positioned US policy as one of moderator between Arne and Israel.

However, there is a difference between not providing discretely aide as the Executive be defying a due appropriations bill of Congress.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would have no bad faith argument nor objection if Congress holds impeachment votes on the matter. That assumes the Act did not provide discretion.

Like with President Trump, I do not see impeachment as the proper remedy. I see censure as the remedy. That does not mean impeachment is not a rational response. Again, assuming the Act did not give discretion.

How man Acts of giving aid involve discretion on the part of the President?

I am sorry. I am having a bit of trouble comprehending your question.

Are you asking me how the President should act assuming the law gives the president discretion.

If that is question, my answer is within the judgement of the man elected to use the discretion. If Congress does not like it, Congress can pass a law to restrict it.

Sorry, just edited it. When Congress passes an Act allowing aid to be given to another Nation/Country, how common is it to make all or some of that aid at the discretion of the President?

The few examples I know of are the inverse.

Congress restricting president discretion.

See the Iran-Contra deal.

Congress passes a law to stop arms sales.l with proceeds going to the Contras. That was the Boland Amendment. ‘No apportionment could be made to the Contras by Fed legislation.

I would have to read the act to find out. To be honest, I have read enough law today and more next week coming.

In the Supreme Court case I cited, Congress passed a law restricting the president’s discretion to nationalize industry during War. That had been done since the Civil War through WWII. The case says, where Congress can restrict and so does, the president has to follow the legislation.

Now, this might be a Rook card for the Administration.

The use of U.S. provided arms to violate international law.

The question becomes as follows: does the President have the authority to refuse arms that Congress apportioned to a a foreign actor when the Administration determines international law, the U.S. has agreed to, is being violated with those weapons?

I am aware of no Supreme Court case on point. It presents Ms a legitimate question for the Federal Courts, Supreme Court, to resolve. Assuming, the Administration wants to push the issue to the center of the table. The best I can remember is that we’re the U.S. has de facto sovereignty, the U.S. must apply due process rights and follow international law the U.S. is signatory.

I have no idea if the President has that authority. It is interesting legal argument that the Administration appears to be setting up.

https://apple.news/AbXqfPf4hR9uKbpKfJLmE5Q

Despite what Dr. Easter blathers on about Israel does not get to persecute this war so regard for the international law.

All the more reason the U.S. should not be supporting Netanyahu’s government.

Israel and the U.S. are signatories to Convention III and Convention IV of the Geneva Conventions.

Those two conventions address the non targeting of civilians, and humane treatment of opposition soldiers.


The is a difference w a distinction between civilians getting killed and targeting civilians.

Isreal has not ratified Protocols I and II which future address the protection of civilians and humane treatment of enemy combatants. However, the U.S. has.

Very interesting this legal argument being set up by the Administration is. Does the Executive Branch have the authority to decide a foreign state is using congressional mandated arms apportionments to violate international law the U.S. is part of, so deciding halt those apportionments to not be in violation of that international law?

I will be honest. I wish I would have thought of this. A lawyer in the Administration is very creative, if not, good. This presents a real question I would like to see the Supreme Court decide just from the legal academic side of it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Worse…he endangering the lives of young men in the IDF — men who believed in America (much like young Rhodesian men of the late 1970s). Soldiers who make up the fighting force of our strongest most reliable ally in the Middle East. What a POS Biden is.

Republicans President and Supreme Allied Commander, Eisenhower did not treat Israel as a strategic ally, but saw the U.S. role as one of “fair moderator” between Arabs and Israel. That is the position we need to keep.

Rhodesia’s fell because the government was inequitable. The Europeans did not transition to affective and just self-rule. This created the environment for socialist_nationalist movement. Yiu would not agree to Democrats having X percent of the seats in the legislature. Why should black Zimbabweans agree to give whites X percent of the legislature that amounted to a legislative veto by the minority?

And while history in Zimbabwe has now proven how flawed that thought process was…you continue to defend based purely on your vision of equity.

Like I have said before. I personally know quite a few Israelis. Almost all are young men and they are all active in the IDF. I have never heard one of them complain, disrespect their country, or even comment negatively about Netanyahu. They all say there country is fighting for its life and they accept their role in that defense without complaint. One of my acquaintances lost is brother in Gaza in this conflict. I don’t buy your position that the majority of the Israeli population disagrees with Netanyahu’s leadership.

I have learned something here though. Evidence is equivalent to “dirt” — if it is evidence of something you don’t want litigated. The lawyer’s mind.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t buy your position that the majority of the Israeli population disagrees with Netanyahu’s leadership.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/...-are-turning-on-him/


https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793846


https://www.reuters.com/world/...aza-vote-2024-03-26/


Bibi is not very popular at home...and for good reason.

Lane,
If you need help figuring out how to use Google, I'm here for you

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
What I really like about this situation is the tried and true American tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gaza, the Palestinians DBA Hamas attack Israel.

Israel defends itself, counterattacks in an effort to defeat and destroy the aggressor and it's staunchest ally, (us,) moves to cut them off at the knees before victory can be secured.

Hamas continues it's tried and true tradition of using its own civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield for its terrorism and nobody, no one in The West, East, North or South lifts an eyebrow.

Who wins here? Who really loves you America?!?!?!?!?! Right! The Islamic Terrorists Baby! ISIS, the Taliban, Hamas, those guys up in Lebanon I can't think of their name,......
Those Somali guys, all of Iran,...... Hooray for Uncle Sam! Waffling again. Hooray for America still not able to see through a war against Islamic terrorists not years long, but short months and the USA ain't even fighting it!
Booyah!

Obviously you’re ignorant about history.

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
What I really like about this situation is the tried and true American tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gaza, the Palestinians DBA Hamas attack Israel.

Israel defends itself, counterattacks in an effort to defeat and destroy the aggressor and it's staunchest ally, (us,) moves to cut them off at the knees before victory can be secured.

Hamas continues it's tried and true tradition of using its own civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield for its terrorism and nobody, no one in The West, East, North or South lifts an eyebrow.

Who wins here? Who really loves you America?!?!?!?!?! Right! The Islamic Terrorists Baby! ISIS, the Taliban, Hamas, those guys up in Lebanon I can't think of their name,......
Those Somali guys, all of Iran,...... Hooray for Uncle Sam! Waffling again. Hooray for America still not able to see through a war against Islamic terrorists not years long, but short months and the USA ain't even fighting it!
Booyah!

Obviously you’re ignorant about history.

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

My knowledge is lacking in many venues, but not this one.

https://israelmap360.com/old-map-israel

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have learned something here though. Evidence is equivalent to “dirt” — if it is evidence of something you don’t want litigated. The lawyer’s mind.

That is not part of this discussion. I am sorry you are not capable of following the discussion.

I am all for this theory being tested bf the Supreme Court.

If you want to discuss Netanyahu’s popularity, see below.

I have posted for direct statements to hostage parents and others inside Israel concerning Netanyahu’s popularity. I never said it was a majority. He was facing a corruption trial bf returning to power that stopped the trial. He then tried to change judicial independence and review. Frankly, his popularity is irrelevant

The evidence is Netanyahu directly contributed to Hamas remaining in power for his own hold on power.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t buy your position that the majority of the Israeli population disagrees with Netanyahu’s leadership.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/...-are-turning-on-him/


https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793846


https://www.reuters.com/world/...aza-vote-2024-03-26/


Bibi is not very popular at home...and for good reason.

Lane,
If you need help figuring out how to use Google, I'm here for you

Then why is N in office? He wasn't duly elected?

My beef here has nothing to do with my comprehension of Civics as our friend Alfalfa thinks, but rather using support during a war to effect regime change. Legal or not it blows my mind that after all this time and all the lessons we've been given there's any even a juvenile in the room that thinks they know better from half a world away and especially half way through a war like this.

If N needs to go it should only be decided by Israel and if America should change funding and support for Israel it certainly should not be decided spur of the moment and in the middle of a conflict.

It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

And why, why, why why does Hamas continue to get a free pass for hiding terrorism behind civilian shields?

"Being a part of the student Intifada is an honor!".


https://www.capradio.org/artic...investment-policies/

I see no problem here.