GeorgiaDon

Ultimately though won't that just force those countries back into the "enemies of Israel" camp? Also I don't see how growing up in a refugee camp in Egypt is any less likely to result in a future terrorist than is growing up in Gaza.

Lets start with a clear statement that Hamas' attack on Israel was an atrocity and a war crime (actually several war crimes, including attacking civilians and taking hostages). Israel has a right, indeed an obligation to respond in order to defend itself, in my opinion. I would agree that the complete removal of Hamas would be desirable. To that end, Israel has invaded Gaza and all the rest, as we all know. Israel has stated several times that they intend to smash Hamas and then exit. Israel has no interest in any presence in, or responsibility for Gaza after their military objectives are achieved. So what happens after that? Interesting article in the current Atlantic. To summarize: Gaza is already on the way to becoming unable to sustain its population. Most of the infrastructure has already been destroyed. By the end of this conflict there will be no electricity, communications, water (desalination plants), most of the hospitals and other medical facilities will have been destroyed, same for schools and roads. A large portion of the surviving population will be homeless, with much of the housing reduced to rubble. About 2 million people will have little or no food, water, shelter, etc. With Hamas gone, who will step up to govern what is left of Gaza ? Israel has made it clear that they are not interested in governing or helping to rebuild. On the other hand the embargo they have had in place for decades will likely continue, making it difficult or impossible to import construction materials Israel considers dual use (both civilian and possibly military use such as building tunnels). Gaza cannot import cement, iron or steel products including rebar, paint, and so on. The PLO has made it clear that they won't do it either. Among other things, they are not interested in being Israel's lackies. They are barely able (or not really able) to manage the West Bank. Egypt? Jordan? Not their responsibility, nor can they afford it. BTW Egypt, Jordan etc are not interested in accepting millions of refugees from Gaza. They already have plenty of refugees from Syria and other conflict zones in the area. So the people of Gaza will continue to be stuck there. If no credible entity steps up, it seems that the long term prognosis for the region is another Islamic extremist group, Hamas II if you will. Only now the population of Gaza will be even more destitute and desperate, and likely to turn to anti-Israel/anti-Jew organizations for leadership. So, any brilliant ideas? Or is the situation just a complete cluster fuck? Another 100 years misery, war, and death?

Some of the interviewers I hear on BBC radio are very tough. They ask pointed questions, and don't accept dissembling answers. I'd love to hear some of them have a go at our US politicians, but of course our politicians are just barely smart enough to never get caught in that position.

When does the aphasia kick in? I can hardly wait!

Not unexpected that a Russian troll wouldn't know that, though.

Oh for fuck's sake! The malignant cancer that is the Republican Party must by now be obvious to all. As much as I would enjoy the irony, Jeffries is not going to become the Speaker. The Democrats should put an end to this charade, if given a chance, by voting for a "less evil" Republican candidate if necessary, or just have enough of their side vote "present" to let the less evil one get a majority. Emmer wasn't great by any means, but he didn't vote against certifying Biden's victory in 2020 and he did vote for the temporary spending bill to prevent a shutdown a few weeks ago, so he isn't completely off the deep end. I suspect that is why the Republicans won't let the vote get to the full House, as the MAGA ones don't want the Democrats to have an opportunity to end this madness. Of course, even if they do find a way to elect a Speaker then the actually tough issues will be in their faces, such as coming up with legislation that can pass in the Senate and be signed into law. Meanwhile the arsonist-in-chief is busy lighting his little dumpster fires to try to burn down the whole country.

Swing and a miss. Shouldn't it be "three strikes and you're out"? I wish some Republican who isn't MAGA-crazy would throw their hat in the ring. Someone who could get votes from both sides, enough to total 217. It would have to be someone who isn't planning on running for re-election though, unfortunately. Too bad Mitt Romney is in the Senate. It says a lot that for Republicans it's career suicide to try to work across the aisle.

If Trump is elected I foresee a pardon and maybe a Medal of Freedom.

It may be harsh, but at this point I think any US citizen (even if they are a dual citizen) who travels to Russia or Iran or North Korea and is taken hostage should be on their own. No way the US should allow itself keep being put on the defensive by such reckless people. It sucks to be unable to visit family, but lots of people get put in that position and deal with it. If someone takes that risk and it blows up in their face they need to own it. There have been plenty of examples of things going sideways, so no-one can claim they didn't know the risks, especially a journalist.

Tommy Tumbleville.

Also it didn't cost 100 million dollars to produce one airplane.

Surely amongst the Republican members of the House there must be some who are sane and reasonable enough to negotiate support from enough Democrats. But, that would require prioritizing legislating over partisan power, so of course it will never happen.

Here's an interesting modern day example: John Urschel played college football at Penn State, then was drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in 2014 and played three seasons before retiring. While at Penn State he earned bachelor's and masters degree in mathematics, then started his PhD at MIT (also in mathematics) while playing for the Ravens. He is currently an assistant professor at MIT. Sports can teach some people to be organized and highly focused. On the other hand I could point to a former college football standout who today lives in a single wide trailer in the college town where I live.

I think they are all emotions, such as like, love, sad, etc. Not "informative", I agree", thank you", and so on. I may be wrong though, I try to stay away from Facebook as much as I can.

D'oh! I stand corrected.

I moderate a different forum (science based) that has buttons for "informative", "I agree", "thank you", and "amusing". Here, in Facebook fashion, we only have "like". My "like" to your post was meant as "informative" and "thank you".

Why did Hillary/Bill/Obama/Biden have her killed? (Just anticipating the Konspiracy Korner).

That reads like a Laurel and Hardy routine. Who's on first?

There's a lot that stinks about this fiasco. No question it's totally inappropriate for India to be carrying out assassinations on Canadian soil, if that is what happened, as seems likely. Nevertheless, it seems more than a little naive to publicly accuse India before the investigation is even complete. Even more so to do it while in the middle of negotiating a free trade agreement with India, which was critical to maintaining ties to Asia after the shitstorm with China. Canada seems to have a "high horse" problem, lecturing other countries about their moral shortcomings, as if they would suddenly change their behavior. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, now India; are there other countries where Canada is now persona non grata? What has that accomplished, other than to isolate Canada? I know there are some situations where Canada didn't have a lot of choice, such as Iran, but even there I would think some diplomacy could have helped, at least after the fact. Regarding China, I think Canada got the short stick for carrying water for the US. I also wonder how it is that some of these people are able to get Canadian citizenship. One would think that after being caught with multiple fraudulent applications, someone would be shown the door.

Canada has suffered a lot thanks to the conflict between Sikh nationalists, some of whom have been outright terrorists, and the Indian government. A friend of mine lost family on Air India flight 182, which was blown up at 31,000 feet over the North Atlantic by Sikh terrorists based in Canada. 329 people died, including 268 Canadians. I wish people would leave their violent conflicts behind and not import them to a country that was so generous as to accept them as immigrants.

I'm actually concerned that Republican-dominated state legislatures will use the legal dodges they passed after the last election to discount votes from Democratic-leaning urban districts, and throw their electoral college votes to Trump even if their state votes for the Democratic candidate. I think that could actually happen in Georgia, for example. Here the legislature gave themselves the power to take over the administration of elections in counties they don't like, based on flimsy pretexts, and even to throw out those votes. Ditching the votes from Fulton County alone, for example, would certainly throw Georgia in Trump's direction. Of course if that happens in enough states to throw the entire election to Trump, would be the end of free elections. How should the majority who didn't support Trump respond to that situation? Also I have been victimized by vandalism to my property, and implied threats from some neighbors, after putting up a Biden/Harris sign in the last election. I had to install security cameras after that. Somehow I don't think things will be any better next time around. It doesn't take "most of the nutters" to do significant damage. It only takes one, for example, to burn my house or barn down. I do not understand the appeal of Trump as a cult leader, but I have heard enough people say things to make it clear that to them voting Democrat makes you worse than Pontius Pilate.

Which is the day before Super Tuesday. Just what Trump deserves for all the shit he has been flinging about judges/prosecutors/juries. If it were anyone else I'd think they would take the hint and stop antagonizing people, but since it's Trump I'd say forget it.

And then what? There is no way he and his "base" would just accept that they lost again. If anything their response will be worse than it was last time.

"Threat", like "risk", includes both the probability of something happening and the consequences, if that something does actually happen. An event that is extremely unlikely, but catastrophic if it does happen, is a threat but maybe not a big one. For example eventually the sun will become a red giant, and the Earth will be incinerated, but the chance of that happening in the next 100 million years is indistinguishable from zero. An event that is likely to occur, or is actually occurring right now (as in the case of climate change), can be more of a threat even if the consequences are less dire than incinerating the planet. The question is, I suppose, how likely do you think it is that a nuclear war will happen?

A woman was visiting El Paso TX and called for an Uber to take her to a casino to meet with her boyfriend. Along the way she saw a road sign for an upcoming exit to Juarez, Mexico. She immediately assumed she was being kidnapped and taken to Mexico, so she pulled out a handgun and shot the driver in the back of the head, killing him. The road they were driving on was, in fact, the correct route between her hotel and the casino, and they were nowhere near the actual border. Oh well, nobody's perfect. Can't have the 2nd amendment without breaking a few eggs after all.