Opinion of Benjamin Netanyahu

[MalaspinaGold]

Netanyahu uses his weapons to protect his civilians.  Hamas uses it's civilians to protect it's weapons.

I get (more or less) NOT supporting Israel, but I totally don't understand the argument that they're basically the same as Hamas.  It makes no sense at all looking at how Hamas acts vs how Israel/IDF acts.

I agree with you. Israel and Hamas aren't the same at all. Hamas didn't forcefully relocate the Palestinian population to an open-air prison in the name of some god-given right to the land.

Well, you can't say Israel did either. If you want to be accurate, Natanyahu/Likud did.

[Lurker]

The settlements alone, and their ever continuing expansion, clearly makes him an HP.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

Didn't Obama do that in Libya?

[TNF]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

The idea that Russia is 100 percent to blame for the situation in Ukraine is ludicrous. But of course, doing your own research on crucial foreign policy debates requires something more than beating your chest and blindly following the line propagated by the administration and it's friends in the media, some of which also happen to be intricately involved in the military-industrial complex. (GE, for example)

[bedstuy]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

The idea that Russia is 100 percent to blame for the situation in Ukraine is ludicrous. But of course, doing your own research on crucial foreign policy debates requires something more than beating your chest and blindly following the line propagated by the administration and it's friends in the media, some of which also happen to be intricately involved in the military-industrial complex. (GE, for example)

Just because you're a commi pinko doesn't mean you need to sympathize with Russia.  So much of this whole situation predicated on the fact that Russia is ruled by a James Bond villain.  Sometimes doing your own research actually leaves you with less information if you're looking with such a blatant anti-American bias.  We all need to realize that the only coherent thing Ronald Reagan ever said was that Russia is an evil empire.  It was during the Tsars, during the Soviet Period and it is again under Putin. 

If you didn't have a conspiracy theorist mind, you would see that GE has no reason to war-monger about Russia and nobody besides Russia wants to pick a beef over Ukraine.  Russia just keeps flagrantly and aggressively invading the sovereignty of its neighbors for no good reason.  We in the West just want to find some way to keep the status quo because Russia is a huge supplier of gas and natural resources to Europe.  How does it help GE to inflame a potential crisis in Europe?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Bedstuy's post feels somewhat racist.

[Simfan34]

Please explain how an assertion that one group of Orthodox Slavs are better than another group of Orthodox Slavs constitutes racism. It might be something, but I don't see how it's racist.

[TNF]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

The idea that Russia is 100 percent to blame for the situation in Ukraine is ludicrous. But of course, doing your own research on crucial foreign policy debates requires something more than beating your chest and blindly following the line propagated by the administration and it's friends in the media, some of which also happen to be intricately involved in the military-industrial complex. (GE, for example)

Just because you're a commi pinko doesn't mean you need to sympathize with Russia.  So much of this whole situation predicated on the fact that Russia is ruled by a James Bond villain.  Sometimes doing your own research actually leaves you with less information if you're looking with such a blatant anti-American bias.  We all need to realize that the only coherent thing Ronald Reagan ever said was that Russia is an evil empire.  It was during the Tsars, during the Soviet Period and it is again under Putin. 

If you didn't have a conspiracy theorist mind, you would see that GE has no reason to war-monger about Russia and nobody besides Russia wants to pick a beef over Ukraine.  Russia just keeps flagrantly and aggressively invading the sovereignty of its neighbors for no good reason.  We in the West just want to find some way to keep the status quo because Russia is a huge supplier of gas and natural resources to Europe.  How does it help GE to inflame a potential crisis in Europe?

I love how you ignored the actual content of my post to launch a tirade about Communism and "anti-American bias" that would make Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan proud, bizarre assertions of an entire nation of people being an "evil empire" included. (As if "evil" is a concept that has any meaning when it comes to discussing the foreign policy of a nation that supported right-wing death squads, coups against elected (progressive) governments, and nearly wiping out mankind in a nuclear war)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

I'd say Abbott's recent comments on the crisis makes Obama look like a dovish fence-sitter. Just because they control weaker countries, doesn't mean they would don't support Obama's actions and more.

____

As for Bibi, well, I know he is "moderate" in the context of his party. Still doesn't excuse the fact that he has endangered regional security through his actions. I'm not opposed to Zionism by any means, but the Israeli project has been mismanaged by almost every regional and great power since its inception.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

He's an FF.

[Franzl]

He's an FF.

How can you say that about someone who isn't saved?

[bedstuy]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

The idea that Russia is 100 percent to blame for the situation in Ukraine is ludicrous. But of course, doing your own research on crucial foreign policy debates requires something more than beating your chest and blindly following the line propagated by the administration and it's friends in the media, some of which also happen to be intricately involved in the military-industrial complex. (GE, for example)

Just because you're a commi pinko doesn't mean you need to sympathize with Russia.  So much of this whole situation predicated on the fact that Russia is ruled by a James Bond villain.  Sometimes doing your own research actually leaves you with less information if you're looking with such a blatant anti-American bias.  We all need to realize that the only coherent thing Ronald Reagan ever said was that Russia is an evil empire.  It was during the Tsars, during the Soviet Period and it is again under Putin. 

If you didn't have a conspiracy theorist mind, you would see that GE has no reason to war-monger about Russia and nobody besides Russia wants to pick a beef over Ukraine.  Russia just keeps flagrantly and aggressively invading the sovereignty of its neighbors for no good reason.  We in the West just want to find some way to keep the status quo because Russia is a huge supplier of gas and natural resources to Europe.  How does it help GE to inflame a potential crisis in Europe?

I love how you ignored the actual content of my post to launch a tirade about Communism and "anti-American bias" that would make Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan proud, bizarre assertions of an entire nation of people being an "evil empire" included. (As if "evil" is a concept that has any meaning when it comes to discussing the foreign policy of a nation that supported right-wing death squads, coups against elected (progressive) governments, and nearly wiping out mankind in a nuclear war)

Well, you seem anti-American to me and I think I remember you being a Marxist Socialist of some sort. 

Of course, not everyone in Russia is evil.  Russia is a huge diverse  country and it's an amazing place in many ways.  But sometimes, you just have to look at the game tape, so to speak.  Look at what Russia has done in the past 100 years.  Horrible war crimes, treating people like expendable natural resources, genocides, corruption, a certain autocratic political structure.  There's continuity from the Tsars, to the Soviets to Putin.  It's not so much the people of Russia, as it is the political structure and corrupt elite that oppresses them. 

I agree that the United States isn't perfect.  But, you have to put some of those things you listed in a proper context.  Often what the CIA did was in response to the Soviet pattern of using "progressive" leftist governments as a stalking horse for a communist takeover.  If you line up US misdeeds against Russia misdeeds in the past century, the US is better by a country mile.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pretty low.

It's easy to forget that Bibi is a pretty ridiculous figure; his main goals appear to be trying to become Prime Minister For Life and trying to be as much of a Big Damn Hero as he views his late brother as being. And it's hard not to suspect that the former goal is mostly a way of achieving the latter.

[SWE]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

I'd say these people are worse, but they head less powerful nations so they can't do as much damage

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

Isn't this literally the "domino theory", except applied to North America instead of Southeast Asia? I don't see YOU talking about how the Vietnam War and other U.S. intevention was justified to prevent the transformation of American allies into Soviet satellite states...

Funny how True Leftists flip-flop into realpolitickers and hawks the moment those ideologies can be used to stick it to America...

[SWE]

Probably the worst Western leader, although Obama certainly gives him a run for his money in that regard.

David Cameron? Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Mariano Rajoy?

With the exception of Cameron, none of those people are actively pushing the world toward a second Cold War, something that cannot be said of Obama.

How dare that Obama force Russia to invade and back an insurgency in a sovereign nation to maintain its sphere of influence!

Are you kidding me right now?

How dare Russia be upset with two decades of encirclement by the United States! We all know the United States would be absolutely and totally okay if a hostile state transformed Mexico and Canada into its satellites, pointed missiles at us, and placed defense systems in those countries as a "precautionary" measure, right?

Isn't this literally the "domino theory", except applied to North America instead of Southeast Asia? I don't see YOU talking about how the Vietnam War was justified to prevent the transformation of American allies into Soviet satellite states...

Funny how True Leftists flip-flop into realpolitickers and hawks the moment those ideologies can be used to stick it to America...

No. If a hostile nation turned Mexico into a satellite state, it would pose a direct threat to America, i.e. the opposite of Vietnam.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the US tried to turn Ukraine into its satellite? That's news to me.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

So the US tried to turn Ukraine into its satellite? That's news to me.

Obviously. To say otherwise implies people could actually not like glorious Mother Russia and Putin-sama, such that they would rise up to overthrow the pro-Russian President, and that's just crazy talk!

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US has lived under that very scenario for over 50 years with Cuba. In return for the Soviets removing the warheads (that we could monitor), the US was -- and remains to this day -- forbidden from any military intervention against the Communist government, whether through direct invasion or by US-backed insurgency.

Would Russia under Putin agree to such terms for Ukraine? More importantly, would TNF agree to such terms for Russia for Ukraine?

[Storebought]

This is a thread about Netanyahu, so I'll just answer the question: He is the canniest world leader in office now (to survive as an Israeli PM for more than a year one has to be), and his policies are a near perfect reflection of the aspirations of the Israeli electorate.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US has lived under that very scenario for over 50 years with Cuba. In return for the Soviets removing the warheads (that we could monitor), the US was -- and remains to this day -- forbidden from any military intervention against the Communist government, whether through direct invasion or by US-backed insurgency.

Would Russia under Putin agree to such terms for Ukraine? More importantly, would TNF agree to such terms for Russia for Ukraine?

To be fair, the Soviets were willing to live with hostile neighboring states such as Turkey. While Putin his his Soviet predecessors were aggressive with weaker countries, they tended to be able to reason.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the US tried to turn Ukraine into its satellite? That's news to me.

Naturally, TNF isn't going to elaborate...

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So the US tried to turn Ukraine into its satellite? That's news to me.

Naturally, TNF isn't going to elaborate...

Yes.

[TNF]

So the US tried to turn Ukraine into its satellite? That's news to me.

Naturally, TNF isn't going to elaborate...

Some of us actually do things besides post on this forum, you know? You should try it some time. Might help with your high blood pressure.

But to that point, Ukraine is clearly in the process of being transformed into a U.S. satellite, much like many of the former Warsaw Pact or Soviet states in the area. First comes a "color revolution" (which more often than not is an actual revolution against corruption and misrule by the hangers-on of the old bureaucratic despotisms) which then quickly degenerates into exchanging one set of corrupt elites (the pro-Russian ones) for another (the pro-American ones). NATO expansion brings these under the protective umbrella of American firepower, and there you have it: new frontiers for American capital to expand and exploit the people of the former Soviet bloc.

Of course, this isn't to say that becoming a Russian satellite would be preferable for these states, either. That imposes the same kind of rule from abroad that weakens their internal economies and corrupts their politics. The only way these countries are going to be able to have any sort of independence is to develop on their own and give both Russia and the U.S. the bird.