• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sovereignty of USA

Is it really sovereign?

  • Yes, It is

    Votes: 22 88.0%
  • No, it is not

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Total voters
    25
I have to bite my tongue in my "real life" when my non-American friends start saying **** about our President - any President of any party - or our lawmakers, period. While I'm a fan of relations between countries and all of that, I also draw the line somewhere. On here I'm more open to what non-Americans say about us because that's in the spirit of the board.
LOL yeah I hear you on that. As a lazy expat I spend a lot of time drinking with my buddies in bars and pubs and we get into it when it comes to politics. I normally criticize the US government and what its been doing but if a foreigner comes over and starts dissing my country I will let him have it even though the last president I liked was Bill Clinton. When W was president one Norwegian guy came over to our table and started dissing the US with our wars and I fired back even though I hated W. I guess thats just the way it goes: you can criticize your country as a local but when a foreigner tells you how it should be run you circle the wagons.
 
It is common for a U.S. President to make outright demands of foreign nations, either under threat of military threat and\or financial sanction, and yet somehow it's not OK for a foreign politician to come to the U.S. and make a sales pitch?

At least this is out in the open, rather than just a sack of money and a wink for a congressperson.

I disagree with Netanyahu's position on Iran, but it would simply be wrong for us not to allow him to come and argue his case.
 
I have to bite my tongue in my "real life" when my non-American friends start saying **** about our President - any President of any party - or our lawmakers, period. While I'm a fan of relations between countries and all of that, I also draw the line somewhere. On here I'm more open to what non-Americans say about us because that's in the spirit of the board.

I also can't stand Obama (I won't use the word hate) but I agree that it's not right for a foreigner to come into his house and criticize him. I was thinking about this last night. I'm a manager of a sales team. I realize that it would really, really bother me if my team went behind my back and invited someone to come speak to them and in the speech, that someone criticized me. I would be mad at my team for that. I think Obama should be mad.

That said, that doesn't mean I agree with the way Obama is handling Iran, and I don't agree with the people who say Israel should be left unprotected or whatever, but from Obama's POV, I'd be pretty pissed.

Which is cool. You don't have to agree with Obama, or disagree with Netanyahu, to not like what happened in America on Monday. I appreciate your position on this!!
 
It is common for a U.S. President to make outright demands of foreign nations, either under threat of military threat and\or financial sanction, and yet somehow it's not OK for a foreign politician to come to the U.S. and make a sales pitch?

At least this is out in the open, rather than just a sack of money and a wink for a congressperson.

I disagree with Netanyahu's position on Iran, but it would simply be wrong for us not to allow him to come and argue his case.

No, it wouldn't. He can and has argued his case on Iran from Israel, for twenty five years now, and he's been repetitively WRONG. he didn't need to be here lying about our president to the chagrin of our congress.
 
It is common for a U.S. President to make outright demands of foreign nations, either under threat of military threat and\or financial sanction, and yet somehow it's not OK for a foreign politician to come to the U.S. and make a sales pitch?

At least this is out in the open, rather than just a sack of money and a wink for a congressperson.

I disagree with Netanyahu's position on Iran, but it would simply be wrong for us not to allow him to come and argue his case.
Can you cite me a single instance in which a US president came into the seat of government of a foreign country and told the politicians there on how to run their country while not being invited by the head of state?
 
No, it wouldn't. He can and has argued his case on Iran from Israel, for twenty five years now, and he's been repetitively WRONG. he didn't need to be here lying about our president to the chagrin of our congress.

I'll admit I haven't watched his speech or read a transcript, but I hadn't heard he lied about Obama. I guess I'll pick through it, but if you wanted to detail the lie, I'd appreciate it.

My point is that it's part of the business for politicians to lobby each other. I much rather it be done in the open than behind the scenes. It's not like Israel isn't outright paying to help Congress folk to get reelected, anyhow.
 
I'll admit I haven't watched his speech or read a transcript, but I hadn't heard he lied about Obama. I guess I'll pick through it, but if you wanted to detail the lie, I'd appreciate it.

My point is that it's part of the business for politicians to lobby each other. I much rather it be done in the open than behind the scenes. It's not like Israel isn't outright paying to help Congress folk to get reelected, anyhow.

Yes he did. He said, "not only does the presidents deal not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, IT PAVES THE WAY"!!!!! He should have been booed out and told not to return.
 
Yes he did. He said, "not only does the presidents deal not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, IT PAVES THE WAY"!!!!! He should have been booed out and told not to return.

That's not a lie. He's correct.
 
Can you cite me a single instance in which a US president came into the seat of government of a foreign country and told the politicians there on how to run their country while not being invited by the head of state?

None leap to mind, but that's not what I said. If Netanyahu had made his speech on television from Israel, would that resolve your issue? If so, we're just talking about different things.

It would be foolish to make demands of an enemy nation on their soil, but no such restriction applies here. Israel is our ally, whether we agree on specific topics or not.

If Iran's leadership came to the U.S., there would be calls for us to arrest them.

Reagan publicly demanded Russia destroy the Berlin Wall, Kennedy demanded they remove the missiles from Cuba, and made speeches in West Germany, Bush demanded Iraq leave Kuwait. No one thought that was inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Yes he did. He said, "not only does the presidents deal not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, IT PAVES THE WAY"!!!!! He should have been booed out and told not to return.

Unless someone can predict the future with 100% certainty, that's hard to know.

Do we even have the details of the deal? My impression is they agree to cease their programs for a time, we cooperate on ISIS, and then ?

I would hope such cooperation would lead to future agreements, but it's far from clear. Maybe the whole thing goes badly, and things become worse than ever.

Netanyahu's language and position are extreme, but it's not a demonstrable lie. I don't have a problem with him making his pitch to Congress or the American people.

He's likely already accomplished his goal, by yanking Iran's chain during the negotiations.
 
Don't act as though it is the same to read a man's opinion and having him hold a highly visible speech before the legislative of the United States against the will of the President.

PS: Why would anyone think that politicians would not do things for political gain? The whole political system is build on the assumption that they do. So where is the beef?
Oh come on...it is exactly the same. What possible difference does it make to the content of the speech if it is given in Congress or Israel? None.
It maybe more dramatic in Congress...but that changes NOTHING that is in the text.
Plus, the speech is about the same thing that Netanyahu has been spouting for about 20 years.
One of the most famous speeches/statements in the 20th century was the 'peace in our time' phrase uttered by Chamberlain on an airport tarmac.
What is said is what matters, not where one says it.
Do you honestly think that ANYONE in Congress had their mind changed by the speech? Not a chance.


Fine, think what you want.

To me, this was nothing more then Boehner trying to humiliate Obama by using Netanyahu as the means to this end. And there is nothing in his speech that - in essence - he has not been saying for many years.
Everyone with a working brain who has followed this knew almost exactly what Bibi was going to say - in essence - before he set foot in Congress...Iran is evil, threat to the world's peace, full of terrorists, wish to wipe Osrael off the map, must be stopped, they will have nukes soon, never negotiate, blah, blah, blah.

I am neither dem nor rep...but to me it is ridiculously obvious that the only reason Boehner invited that increasingly paranoid Israeli leader (whose own security services keep having to correct through leaks) was for political gain and NOTHING else PLUS that it served no practical purpose - since everyone in Congress knew almost exactly what was going to be said weeks before he even said it.

Complete waste of time to me.
 
Last edited:


Netanyahu could be right or wrong, could make any kind of speech; but in a non-Israeli congress He tells Us reps what to do and how to do, calls for more wars and blood of US soldiers and people in congress applause him for 4 minutes.

When I take a look at the picture, the first thing that came to my mind is the title of this thread.


He was not telling the US what to do he was conveying the Israeli position which is that this is a bad deal not only for Israel but for the world.
 
Only God is sovereign. :roll:
 
He was not telling the US what to do he was conveying the Israeli position which is that this is a bad deal not only for Israel but for the world.
And it was his DUTY as PM of Israel to do it.

He opened with high compliments for Obama, but clearly disagreed on the leaked details.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...obumble-and-kerry-folding-like-tent-iran.html
IMO, and that of many others, was Obama and Kerry were Folding and about to conclude a "best we can get" Unacceptable agreement, just to have an agreement.

I was against him coming as a breach of Protocol, but he give a excellent and well-reasoned speech.
It actually HELPS the USA and West, and moves the negotiating position more in Our favor.
It shines the light of day on the talks/issues/Concessions (see my link above), and Now it will be harder for Iran to get, and us to give, an Ineffective agreement-for-agreement's sake.

Obama has been such an amateur and dupe on Foreign affairs, starting with his Apologetics-to-Muslims Speech in Cairo.
He's just incredibly naive.
(to be kind)
 
I will. And don't want to see either side doing this.

Most of the people complaining about Netenyahu don't give two ****s about America's sovereignty. They mock it.They support things that encourage illegal entry into our country such as amnesty.Heck even the ones all glad about Netenyahu being here also globalist.
 
He was not telling the US what to do he was conveying the Israeli position which is that this is a bad deal not only for Israel but for the world.

Well **** that freak. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France and the US disagree with him. And, he's been wrong only for about ever!
 
Most of the people complaining about Netenyahu don't give two ****s about America's sovereignty. They mock it.They support things that encourage illegal entry into our country such as amnesty.Heck even the ones all glad about Netenyahu being here also globalist.

Perhaps. But that wouldn't be me.
 
Yes. Yes it is. Does AIPAC have a lot of influential power? Does that make the US not sovereign? No.
 
Well **** that freak. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France and the US disagree with him. And, he's been wrong only for about ever!

Fairly sure that the US agrees with him that this deal is BS, if Obama tries to sign this treaty without Senate ratification then it's impeachment time, this is not the Russian Federation, we do not live under a dictator.
 


Netanyahu could be right or wrong, could make any kind of speech; but in a non-Israeli congress He tells Us reps what to do and how to do, calls for more wars and blood of US soldiers and people in congress applause him for 4 minutes.

When I take a look at the picture, the first thing that came to my mind is the title of this thread.


Our country moves as far as money will allow. Netanyahu can say anything he wants; GW Bush did... But there is a lot of foreign money and thanks to citizen's united our sovereignty could get real thin in times to come.
 
Our country moves as far as money will allow. Netanyahu can say anything he wants; GW Bush did... But there is a lot of foreign money and thanks to citizen's united our sovereignty could get real thin in times to come.

How exactly does that USSC case cause that? I want to hear that-its a specious claim you have made
 
Back
Top Bottom