Speaking of Obama and Israel, why is it America's job to babysit Israel?

[subchaser12]

I see this topic comming up. Why is it Obama, Bush's or America's job at all to babysit Israel's foreign policy issues? We are fighting the Iraq war for them. We have sold them everything from nukes to can openers, what's the deal?

Look up what they did to the USS Liberty. Why are we even friends with those people?

[SmithN23]

I don't think we "babysit" Israel as you say, but we help them in anyway possible because they are our allies, just as we have helped South Korea, Taiwan, and many other countries. In my opinion President elect Obama probably wont just give Israel the finger and say f you, but if Israel gets into another skirmish/war with Iran he wont give them any support, in the way of arms/ammunition.

Also, we are not fighting the Iraq war for Israel, we went in to Iraq (contrary to popular belief) to oust Saddam Hussein, he was a very evil person, and we are continuing to fight there to keep the Iraqi people free from oppression from radical terrorists.

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire. This was not the first time it has happened and unfortunately wont be the last. No country is immune to friendly fire, just Google friendly fire Iraq, or Afghanistan and you will see tons of examples.

EDIT: Some SP and added a point I missed

[stabiz]

Do you believe any of what you just wrote?

[subchaser12]

Also, we are not fighting the Iraq war for Israel, we went in to Iraq (contrary to popular belief) to oust Saddam Hussein, he was a very evil person, and we are continuing to fight there to keep the Iraqi people free from oppression from radical terrorists.

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire.

Removal of Saddam Hussein from power was an Israeli strategic objective, not an American one.

Israeli pilots radiod that it was an American ship, they saw the flag. The were threatened with court martials if they didn't attack it. The USS Liberty was only saved because a Russian vessel wandered onto the scene by accident. Friendly fire my ass.

They also knew about the bombing of the Marine barracks in advance, but didn't warn the Marines thinking America would full on invade. Reagan was too smart for that though, thankfully.

I am aware Israel is a sacred cow and can not be questioned, but I'm doing it anyway.

[Blacklight]

Isreal REALLY, REALLY, helped us with the U.S.S.R. durring the cold war. It's only right that we return the favor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SmithN23

Also, we are not fighting the Iraq war for Israel, we went in to Iraq (contrary to popular belief) to oust Saddam Hussein, he was a very evil person, and we are continuing to fight there to keep the Iraqi people free from oppression from radical terrorists.


No... we went into Iraq so that we could install a puppet government there so we could have better control over their oil reserves.

[SmithN23]

Also, we are not fighting the Iraq war for Israel, we went in to Iraq (contrary to popular belief) to oust Saddam Hussein, he was a very evil person, and we are continuing to fight there to keep the Iraqi people free from oppression from radical terrorists.

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire.
Removal of Saddam Hussein from power was an Israeli strategic objective, not an American one.

Israeli pilots radiod that it was an American ship, they saw the flag. The were threatened with court martials if they didn't attack it. The USS Liberty was only saved because a Russian vessel wandered onto the scene by accident. Friendly fire my ass.

They also knew about the bombing of the Marine barracks in advance, but didn't warn the Marines thinking America would full on invade. Reagan was too smart for that though, thankfully.

I am aware Israel is a sacred cow and can not be questioned, but I'm doing it anyway.
Ok, to play devils advocate here, can you cite your sources? If your statements are true, then Israel should have been held accountable for their actions.

In regards to Saddam Hussein he was a threat, whether or not it was intimidate is debatable but a threat is still a threat.

And no country or person should be a "sacred cow", everyone regardless of their position/wealth/social status/ect, should be held to the exact same standards. With that I completely agree.

and to Stabiz, if I didn't believe it I would not have written it. (not to say that I may have been wrong in some of my claims)

[Thomen]

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire.

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

Starting at page 25.. :down:
I do not believe that it was mistaken identity.

EDIT:
Here is the main link to all or most of the documents.
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

[SmithN23]

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire.

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

Starting at page 25.. :down:
I do not believe that it was mistaken identity.

EDIT:
Here is the main link to all or most of the documents.
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

Ok, so I was wrong in my claim on that part (my bad), I had not see that report before, and I will read the whole thing through at a later time. Thanks for the link.

[Thomen]

In regard to the USS Liberty, it was a case of mistaken identity and friendly fire.

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

Starting at page 25.. :down:
I do not believe that it was mistaken identity.

EDIT:
Here is the main link to all or most of the documents.
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/
Ok, so I was wrong in my claim on that part (my bad), I had not see that report before, and I will read the whole thing through at a later time. Thanks for the link.
Anytime. I just remembered that the NSA had some files released about that incident and read a bit more about it at the National Cryptologic Museum, outside of Fort Mead.

[Christopher Snow]

Israel is a country which is founded, very much, on the premise that there IS a God (that God of the Old Testament). This is true, even if many Israelis today don't even believe it (or don't pay attention to it). To the extent they do or don't, that is their problem and their responsibility (and one they can take up with God themselves).

If Israel has any effective "babysitter," it will be that God (and not the US) who is the force behind it. To the extent the US was "used" for this purpose since the end of WWII, I would opine it's been very much the US which was "priveledged" to do so.

As of Tuesday, I believe, similarly, that the "priveledge" has been withdrawn. To the everlasting shame of the US.

No longer much of an issue--the US now has much bigger problems, in my view, after the events of Tuesday. The way I see it, God (again...presuming he exists at all) folded his arms and, quite deliberately, turned his back on this country this last Tuesday.

So in my view, Israel needn't worry about a sudden waning level of support from the US. It's the US which should worry.

Of course, the rest of the world should worry too (but it won't--human beings never fail to avail themselves of a chance to be stupid).

------

Now....everything I just said is premised entirely on the fact that the God of the Old Testament exists.

He might not exist too, so I might just be wasting my breath (and a few keystrokes)...and these few electronic bits it takes to put these ideas down on the internet. So peeps like you, stabiz (and subchaser12 too), shouldn't worrry at all if you DON'T believe this God exists.

If you don't believe it, then, of course you are right and I am just a crazy man. :D

So...let's roll those dice and see! Place your bets!


CS

[joegrundman]

Oh Puh-leese CS.

[GoldenRivet]

Removal of Saddam Hussein from power was an Israeli strategic objective, not an American one.

Look.

regardless of who's "objective" it was.

You need to consider this.

Leadership is a burden.

anyone who has ever been in a command position in a situation which is a matter of life and death, or has the potential to alter another persons life permanently will tell you...

Its hard... it's trying... it's difficult... it's demanding.

So lets say you are the president of the United States of America in late 2001.

you are commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, charged with a major responsibility of protecting the citizens of the USA from foreign aggression and harm.

Lets also say that as President of the United States, your sitting in your office and it has only been a matter of weeks since your nation experienced the worst attack on its own soil since Pearl Harbor.

Your intelligence agency walks into your office and hands you and your advisory staff a dossier from a collaborative intelligence collecting effort from the combined national cooperation of France, Italy, Germany and your own United States.

You open the dossier and the synopsis is as follows;

"Throughout our nine year study of this case through traditional intelligence gathering methods, it is our opinion that Iraq currently possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or is developing such weapns. AND - their government headed by Saddam Heussien, has displayed intent to sell these weapons to terrorits organizations throughout the world."

everyone at the long conference table finishes the discussion and looks at YOU.

"Mr. President... what should we do?"






well mr. president?

[Christopher Snow]

Oh Puh-leese CS.
Please what?

Please take it elsewhere? Please stop wasting your time?

The simple fact is, I myself, DO believe it.

I invite you to laugh out loud...or cry (either one) while looking right into my face.

-----

You will certainly have heard that old saw that says "there are no athiests in foxholes."

I might be a good example of how very true that is--I am, at best, only a miserably poor Christian (I am not sure even now if I can safely claim even that meagre mantle), but I am, also, an example of just how desperate a man can become when he feels all the walls are closing in on him (and all his escape routes are cut off).

For my part, and despite my very clear level of "unpreparedness" should God show up in the next ten seconds, I AM still quite willing to roll those dice right now.

Know that if it doesn't happen, it won't be because I suggested we wait.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Removal of Saddam Hussein from power was an Israeli strategic objective, not an American one.
Look.

regardless of who's "objective" it was.

You need to consider this.

Leadership is a burden.

anyone who has ever been in a command position in a situation which is a matter of life and death, or has the potential to alter another persons life permanently will tell you...

Its hard... it's trying... it's difficult... it's demanding.

So lets say you are the president of the United States of America in late 2001.

you are commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, charged with a major responsibility of protecting the citizens of the USA from foreign aggression and harm.

Lets also say that as President of the United States, your sitting in your office and it has only been a matter of weeks since your nation experienced the worst attack on its own soil since Pearl Harbor.

Your intelligence agency walks into your office and hands you and your advisory staff a dossier from a collaborative intelligence collecting effort from the combined national cooperation of France, Italy, Germany and your own United States.

You open the dossier and the synopsis is as follows;

"Throughout our nine year study of this case through traditional intelligence gathering methods, it is our opinion that Iraq currently possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or is developing such weapns. AND - their government headed by Saddam Heussien, has displayed intent to sell these weapons to terrorits organizations throughout the world."

everyone at the long conference table finishes the discussion and looks at YOU.

"Mr. President... what should we do?"

well mr. president?
Very good.

I like to think I would have done very much what GWB chose to do--take the war overseas and onto "enemy" soil.

The enemy, in this case being the supporters of Islam.

I DO believe GWB saw it, very much, as a war of East vs. West with Christianity (and Judaism too) allied with one another againt the forces of Islam.

As distasteful as that concept will be to most here, I also think he was quite right--it IS a final battle for the planet and it IS happening now.

George Patton paraphrased this concept of "taking the fight to the enemy "when he said "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the OTHER POOR BASTARD DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY."

In practical terms, you win a war by taking the venue of battle onto HIS terrain, and at the earliest possible opportunity.

GWB did just that when he moved into Iraq. To his everlasting credit.

Not a great man, no. But certainly a good one (and a better one than I myself gave him credit for being at the time--I didn't vote for him on either occasion, but I do now wish I had done so (at least once)).


CS

[caspofungin]

edit -- i posted a reply, but really, what's the point?

[AntEater]

Israel is a country which is founded, very much, on the premise that there IS a God (that God of the Old Testament).

Ahem, not exactly true. A religious Israel would only be legal to be founded after the Messiah comes along and the temple is rebuild.
Herzl was a nationalist who believed in racial theory, securing the jewish race a place alongside the germanic race. Ben Gurion held similar beliefs.
Many other founding fathers were socialist or even communist.

The whole "state of god" idea is something the Israelis use since Reagan's times to fool the US religious right into supporting them
Of course many jews are religious, but the nation itself has secular roots, with marked exceptions for religion like talmud students being exempt from conscription.
Funny is that you could safely consider Israel to be the most "socialist" western nation, so it is kind of surprising that the favorite nation of the american religious right actually would be utterly despised if it were any other nation.

Israel relies on superior military might, good intelligence and conscription, not on divine intervention.
If the old testament tells you one thing, it is that even the Israelites shouldn't rely too much on divine intervention....
:rotfl:

[caspofungin]

@anteater

but why rely on the old testament (or new testament, quran, book of mormon, vedas, pitakas, or necronomicon) when good old-fashioned greed, bigotry, deceit, and ignorance are so much more useful when it comes to getting what you want? :shifty:

[AntEater]

Relying on the Necronomicron....

http://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png?w=420&h=420

[caspofungin]

:rotfl:

[Fish]

[-----

You will certainly have heard that old saw that says "there are no athiests in foxholes."

CS

Thats for people who grow up with God, people who didn't will cry for there mom. :yep:

[GlobalExplorer]

Not a great man, no. But certainly a good one (and a better one than I myself gave him credit for being at the time--I didn't vote for him on either occasion, but I do now wish I had done so (at least once)).

**** happens. And better luck next time.

[NeonSamurai]

Look.

regardless of who's "objective" it was.

You need to consider this.

Leadership is a burden.

anyone who has ever been in a command position in a situation which is a matter of life and death, or has the potential to alter another persons life permanently will tell you...

Its hard... it's trying... it's difficult... it's demanding.

So lets say you are the president of the United States of America in late 2001.

you are commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, charged with a major responsibility of protecting the citizens of the USA from foreign aggression and harm.

Lets also say that as President of the United States, your sitting in your office and it has only been a matter of weeks since your nation experienced the worst attack on its own soil since Pearl Harbor.

Your intelligence agency walks into your office and hands you and your advisory staff a dossier from a collaborative intelligence collecting effort from the combined national cooperation of France, Italy, Germany and your own United States.

You open the dossier and the synopsis is as follows;

"Throughout our nine year study of this case through traditional intelligence gathering methods, it is our opinion that Iraq currently possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or is developing such weapns. AND - their government headed by Saddam Heussien, has displayed intent to sell these weapons to terrorits organizations throughout the world."

everyone at the long conference table finishes the discussion and looks at YOU.

"Mr. President... what should we do?"






well mr. president?
Well I for one would have read the entire report before making a decision, rather then only reading the front page summary which it would seem was the only thing most politicians read. The summary was very misleading and even completely erroneous as to the contents of the report. The actual intelligence (which was in the full report) at the time believed quite the opposite, that there was little evidence that Sadam had or was trying to make nuclear or biological weapons. As for chemical weapons it was also doubted if Sadam had the capacity to produce them any more (this was something the UN was monitoring for). Also Sadam had no real links to terrorism and Al Queda (unlike say the US ally Saudi Arabia). The fact that Sadam was an evil vile man is true, but then a large chunk of the world is run by men like him. Freeing the iraqi people was not the key objective (though it does sound good in the media).

Shame hardly anyone read the report before voting to go to Iraq. But then that seems to be the norm for most politicians.. do the absolute minimum and above all avoid reading anything (and that goes for all politicians in just about any country).

[August]

Removal of Saddam Hussein from power was an Israeli strategic objective, not an American one.

That is incorrect. We had as much reason to want Saddam gone as anyone.

[subchaser12]

[/quote]
Ok, to play devils advocate here, can you cite your sources? If your statements are true, then Israel should have been held accountable for their actions.

In regards to Saddam Hussein he was a threat, whether or not it was intimidate is debatable but a threat is still a threat.

And no country or person should be a "sacred cow", everyone regardless of their position/wealth/social status/ect, should be held to the exact same standards. With that I completely agree.

[/quote]

Israel has been a sacred cow since it's founding. If you dare question their foriegn policy you are immediately labeled anti-semetic and the Israelis are then allowed to plug their ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you racist scum" as they storm out of the room.

I don't have any leaked Mossad memos, but do you really need one to know they were high fiving each other in Israel when Saddam was hung?

Look at what happened to Jonathan Pollard. I mean really, "with friends like Israel", who needs enemys?

[GlobalExplorer]

This is pissing me off too. We are obliged to be respectful of Jews, but how much longer can we stand still since Israel stole, (yes: stole) the land from the palestinians and treats them like animals. The whole conflict between the West and Islam, it's all about Israel, and by pouring more oil into the fire (Iraq) the US have ensured that it will last for some more decades.

I hope I don't get accused of being antisemitic - but it would be anice change nice change from being a leftist on this forum.

[Skybird]

The whole conflict between the West and Islam, it's all about Israel,
That easy and simplified it is NOT.

While Muhammad certainly was pissed of the Jewish pharisees proving to be superior to his own little aergument he hoped to have with them to find himself as an equal if not superior to them, and this narcissistic deficit of his character having been the basis for islam's deep-rooting disgust of and even hate for the Jews and their refomed version, the christians, it does not mean that if Israel would suddenly disappear by miracle and wonder, or the issues at least being solved, Islam'S unforgiving attitude towards other cultures, and it'S claim of needing to be seen as the penultimate authority worldwide, winning world rulership and creating peace by wiping out everything that could rise a challenge to it, would suddenly disappear. And the conflict between shia and sunni, Saudi-Arabian and Persian dominance, the old muslim coivil war, still would be there. And i always have said that this story by far outshines the Palestinian conflict in importance, and even makes pragmatic, ideologic use if it. Note that the Sunni states do not care much for the Palestinians anyway, and Palestine and Lebanon has become a playground for a püroxy confrotnation between Sunni Saudi arabia and Shia Iran.

the inner Islamic ideology, and this centuries-old inner conflict are the real keys to the situation in the ME. The palestinian'S fault is that they are sitting betwee all chairs, have made too many wrong decisions and now have nobody anymore who wants to deal with them. Which to a major part is their own fault, since they have bitten to many Arab hands that were offered them to their assistance. Believe me, I have seen it in almpost all Muslims nations where I have been: the disgust for the Palestinians is very widespread, and very intense. Only propagandists use their case for their opportunistic purposes.

Get a solution between Israel and the Palestinians, all fine with me, it's okay. just do not expect it to be the key to solving the ME. It is NOT.

[Frame57]

The area was under British rule for a long time. The British were in fact playing both ends at the same time. They wanted Jewish help in fighting germany in WWI, but then even ignored the UN in the 40's because they did not want to lose their rule in the region due to Israel becoming a state again after 2000 years of exile. The Jews stole nothing but were given the status of statehood with borders that were always national Israel dating back several thousand years.

[Hanomag]

regardless of who's "objective" it was.

You need to consider this.

Leadership is a burden.

anyone who has ever been in a command position in a situation which is a matter of life and death, or has the potential to alter another persons life permanently will tell you...

Its hard... it's trying... it's difficult... it's demanding.

So lets say you are the president of the United States of America in late 2001.

you are commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, charged with a major responsibility of protecting the citizens of the USA from foreign aggression and harm.




OMFG I wish. No troops until my stockpile of bombs is emptied. Reactivate all the B-52's and carpet bomb everything flat! Make Dresden look like a candle flame. Arclight 4tw.

Forget installing democracy. Bulldoze whats left and put up a few casinos and some oil refineries, oh and a KFC. We'll call it New Texas or something.

Bet you guys are glad "W" did it and not me. Things can always be worse.

Of course as a NYC cop and witnessing the carnage and surffering the losses of 911 1st hand, maybe I would tend to overreact. But you know what ...I don't care..

[Skybird]

In regards to Saddam Hussein he was a threat, whether or not it was intimidate is debatable but a threat is still a threat.

No, not really. The war of 91 had pulled his teeth, and very much so. His threat potential ended at the border of Iraq, and that he terrorised his own population (to a level that nevertheless was far below the suffering and detah caused by the war of 2003) was with american acceptance and permission, when the rebellion of the Shia was betrayxed by Washington and they ordered their troops to just watch when he struck them and masacred them by the thousands. Back then he still was seen as an antidot to Iran - even after the war 1991, and may it only have been for the purpose to prevent Iraq falling to Iranian influence. Even for small Kuwait he was no realistic offensive threat anymore. And different to what the war coalition tried to make the world believe, he was not stupid enough to actively engaed in supporting terrorism against the US - he knew that this would only be a trigger for causing a massive American retaliation, and a final war crushing him. That'S why he used words and carefully dosed provokations to poke the Amerians sometimes with a fine and small needle. But in no way he was in a position to stab them with a knife, or strike with a sword: he had none anymore.

[={FH}=Paddy]

It is within the interest of any future American president to get the vast American Jewish votership on side, they, the American Jewish community and Diaspora, account for a vast percentage of very affluent to very powerful and business astute individuals in the US. To have this gang on side one must continue to be seen shaking hands with, the only, so called democracy in the middle east, Israel.
Its a little like every America president likes to tap in to the Irish American vote too, as there are an estimated 40 million Irish Americans, again a very large number of votes if you have them onside.
What’s more, with a name like “O’Bama”, he really is Irish isn’t he!!
Just my 2 cent worth…….

[={FH}=Paddy]

Good point Mikhayl, my oversight, but until recent times The Lebanon was considered to be no more than a Syrian puppet state....................and even now, while the strings are not so defined as they once were, they certainly lead out of country! I shall leave you to speculate on to whom and where they lead………..….that’s not my call.

[={FH}=Paddy]

A “BattleGround” state is an interesting manner in which to explain it, however, probably the most apt, albeit extremely sadly to have to do so.
Again as mentioned, the influence from Tehran, Damascus and Riyadh clearly indicates a puppet state to some degree. These strings leading out of country to entities of a somewhat dubious nature (understatement) and with often conflicting goals and interests would also most certainly remove The Lebanon from being realistically considered as a democracy.

[={FH}=Paddy]

Very well put indeed Mikhayl and as you highlight, the US and Israel equally have their hand in the pie, for their personal reasons and interests too!
Sadly it really is a case of “watch this spot” and hope and pray that history doesn’t come back and haunt them again with another long and bitter civil war………….

Yes mate…..we are getting a little off topic here………but it’s an interesting discussion all the same!

PS: Etes-vous d'origine Francaise ou expatrié d'un pays anglophone vivant en France?

[Sailor Steve]

Now....everything I just said is premised entirely on the fact that the God of the Old Testament exists.

He might not exist too, so I might just be wasting my breath (and a few keystrokes)...and these few electronic bits it takes to put these ideas down on the internet. So peeps like you, stabiz (and subchaser12 too), shouldn't worrry at all if you DON'T believe this God exists.
Way to hedge your bets.:rotfl:

And I am just teasing, because I used to be a devout Christian, but the more I look at the evidence the more doubts I had. Note I said "doubts". I'm not an atheist by any means, for the same reason that I am no longer a believer. I have a long history of being wrong, and my doubts began while I still believed. I question people who feel they have to prove their faith (or that they even can), because isn't that what faith's all about - believing the unbelievable? Likewise I can't be a hardcore atheist because that also involves faith.

My final answer is always the same: "I don't know". Sometimes I add "And I don't think you do either", but that's because I don't trust people who display that kind of certainty. And I also don't know why I felt the need to tell you that, and didn't mean to wander off topic.

-'Sailor Steve' Bradfield

[MothBalls]

My final answer is always the same: "I don't know". Sometimes I add "And I don't think you do either"

Classic.

I like CG's explanation ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=casUr9UsabY

[={FH}=Paddy]

@ Mikhayl: I grew up in Ireland until 9 and then moved to Brussels for 18 years. In-between the afore mentioned time, I was in the UK for 2 years, de retour en Irelande pour deux ans, then India and far east for one years, again back to Irelande! Then off to Spain for a year. In 2002 I moved to Tel Aviv where I lived and worked during the second Intifada for two years (while not Israeli or Jewish, I was following my heart!) until my return to Ireland in 2004, where I now work & live (with my little 1 year old gorgeous daughter). La vie est trops court pour avoirs des emerdes! Enchanté de fair votre conecance Mikhayl and your English is fantastic btw, my French is deteriorating daily now but I fait mon mieux! And all the best with your plans too btw……it’s a fascinating part of the world and deserves not only the best efforts from its respective peoples, but from us all too.
This old adage springs to mind, "Fighting for peace is like F*%$ing for virginity"!:nope:

[={FH}=Paddy]

Good man Mikhayl - as is said, Insha'Allah & Allah Maak! And peace & shalom to all! :yep:Now its time for my nest. La petite va bientot avoir faime!
Tot zeinz une fois dit!

[={FH}=Paddy]

PS: Hippie? I know a great berber barber in Haifa!!:up:

[jpm1]

when you need a country petroleum in the region your attack that country saying it's a threat for Israel . Israel having the nuclear bomb it's also a kind of permanent base for the US if needed . Each time Israel launches a missile it's a good thing for the US military industry . Israel has a 10 bn $ defence budget with US only equipement can't be a bad thing for the US economy

[Task Force]

I think they need to let them sit in there slef pitty and try to make things better over here in the US.

[={FH}=Paddy]

there slef = their self, i guess? (a dabble or two from the crew's rum rations maybe?) tut tut:shifty::rotfl:

[={FH}=Paddy]

@jpm1: furthermore, as we all know the annual overseas investment from the US to Raphael Israel Armaments Development Authority is primarily so that the US can patent Israeli born ideas, claim them as their own weapon systems (with minor amendments) and manufacture them en gross, something the Israeli's, due to global sanctions can neither nor afford or permit them selves to do. Of course a 10B$ hand out in this scenario is made viable by the US, but without the top honchos in Washington who are in primary slots of power within the US echelon of business, finance etc and of the Diaspora vote, this 10B$ would not be a case in point and hence the support (or "babysitting" as put by our esteemed kaleun "subchaser12") be a necessity for any American “residing” or "wannabe" president to take in to consideration.

The world’s waves wash on many shores other than our own, but the ripple of which, is felt far and wide! Petroleum is but a dabble for now; fresh water will be the trophy of the future and though the source of life, shall produce death in magnitudes to those who seek its source.
Just look at a map of the ME.

[FIREWALL]

I'd like to see where this topic would go if the Avon Lady were still here. :p :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[AngusJS]

In practical terms, you win a war by taking the venue of battle onto HIS terrain, and at the earliest possible opportunity.

GWB did just that when he moved into Iraq. To his everlasting credit.


That's an unintended consequence. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators - no or very little resistance after the fall of Saddam was expected.

And all the terrorists we're killing - how many are Al Qaeda and other int'l groups, and how many are Iraqis (say former Iraqi Army, wisely disbanded by Bremer :roll: [way to lead, Bush]) who wouldn't have cared less about attacking us if we weren't there in the first place?

[Buddahaid]

[/quote]
That's an unintended consequence. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators - no or very little resistance after the fall of Saddam was expected.
[/quote]

Two more cents, well maybe four. Iraq was founded by the British and her people had had enough of foreign rule. Why would the US in its arrogance, or ignorance, believe another would be welcome? As much as Saddam was a somewhat cruel leader, it takes one to unite, if that's the word, a country with religious factions perfectly content to murder each other over how to worship the same God. That goes for the whole of the ME in my view. My God is the only true God and you either see it my way or die infidel. Until people can see beyond that concept, it will never end. Now what of the other billions of people that worship Buddha. Are they in need of conversion by death? Why can't we all agree to accept that others may find God in their own way already? And, why are we so arrogant to think the almighty omnipotent one needs any help?:damn:

Buddahaid

By the way, I'm not a Buddist. Sheesh, I can't even spell it.:rotfl:

[subchaser12]

The whole Iraq debacle has backfired on Israel however. America completely failed to put anything but chaos in place after Saddam was removed. Now the real enemy of Israel aka Iran and it's extremely potent brand of Islam is tapping its toe and looking at its watch waiting to fill the Iraq power vacuum as soon as America pulls out.

Look at it this way, America is like a plumber. Israel contracted us to fix a nasty crack in their bathtub. America goes over and smashes the tubs crack with a sledgehammer and removes the crack but puts a huge hole in the tub. America has been standing there scratching its head ever since unable to fix it. There is still a lot of water flooding the place years later. Substitute blood for water.

Don't call me a commie, I'm American.

[NefariousKoel]

OMFG

This thread needs more Israel and American Jew conspiracy theories. :roll:

Why would we be allied to the only Democracy amongst a sea of tyrannical Islamist states where terrorists are brainwashed in 'schools' by Imams instead of actually learning anything, burn my flag, shout "death to america", and cheer when a few of them fly airplanes into our buildings? Is that so difficult to grasp?

Skybird was right, the violence problem in the ME doesn't matter if Israel exists or not.

[Christopher Snow]

I will put forth the arguement that this was NEVER an obligation America had at all.

It MIGHT be one it agreed to undertake/underwrite...but, IMO, that would have been a mistake (no reason we can't make mistakes).

Suppose your country perceives there in an enemy lying deep within the borders of another country....

And suppose your country chose to strike (on that basis) deep and hard into that "enemy country"...in order to remove the threat it perceived.

Is your own "agressor" country somehow, then, obliged to assume responsibility for the nation you just (successfully) victimized? And on what theory?

For my part, I quite emphatically do NOT think so. I believe you have just as much right (as would anyone else) to withdraw at the next opportuntity. Or even slower, should you (alone) see fit to do so.

And if that withdrawal would then leave said "victim" in a quandry: undefended? Well too bad for him.

My point is this: IMO, the US owed absolutely NOTHING to Iraq once it had succussfully eliminated Saddam Husseins army.

Nothing at all. Not one thin dime.

IMO, We should have left the next day. Certainly, IMO, we COULD have.

But We also Could have felt free to come back in again (in order to track SH down) as we saw fit over the course of those next few years.

IMO we owed the government and citizens of Iraq not ONE DAMNED THING (and we still don't owe them anything) even now).

Hundreds of Billions of US dollars wasted, IMO. And on a fallacy.


CS

[subchaser12]

Is your own "agressor" country somehow, then, obliged to assume responsibility for the nation you just (successfully) victimized? And on what theory?



Under the law of the Geneva convention, not a theory. The Geneva convention lays it out clearly how you are supposed to treat an occupied country. America is a signatory. The US has blown off the geneva conventions though by torturing and not taking care of the Iraqi people we conquered. America does what is always does, walls itself in a heavily fortified base and waits for the locals to start playing nice. Basically the geneva conventions is clear, you break it you bought it. The laws are clear on how to treat the occupied country, America couldn't care less. I mean they are all just people with brown skin anyway. It's not like they are humans like us, they probably can't even reason. We are supposed to supply them with clean water, food, shelter etc. Maybe if America did that the insugency would not still be going strong. It doesn't matter, Obama will pull the troops out and Al Sadyr can take control.

[subchaser12]

Why would we be allied to the only Democracy amongst a sea of tyrannical Islamist states where terrorists are brainwashed in 'schools' by Imams instead of actually learning anything, burn my flag, shout "death to america", and cheer when a few of them fly airplanes into our buildings? Is that so difficult to grasp?



Americans can burn the flag, we don't bulldoze their homes and shoot their kids in the face with rubber bullets do we? As for being brainwashed in schools, how is American "home schooling" by the christian right any different. They aren't learning anything, pick up a homeschooler textbook, it's Jesus this, Jesus that.

It's overly romantic on your part to say we bend over backswards so far just because Israel is a democracy.

[Skybird]

I will put forth the arguement that this was NEVER an obligation America had at all.

It MIGHT be one it agreed to undertake/underwrite...but, IMO, that would have been a mistake (no reason we can't make mistakes).

Suppose your country perceives there in an enemy lying deep within the borders of another country....

And suppose your country chose to strike (on that basis) deep and hard into that "enemy country"...in order to remove the threat it perceived.

Is your own "agressor" country somehow, then, obliged to assume responsibility for the nation you just (successfully) victimized? And on what theory?

For my part, I quite emphatically do NOT think so. I believe you have just as much right (as would anyone else) to withdraw at the next opportuntity. Or even slower, should you (alone) see fit to do so.

And if that withdrawal would then leave said "victim" in a quandry: undefended? Well too bad for him.

My point is this: IMO, the US owed absolutely NOTHING to Iraq once it had succussfully eliminated Saddam Husseins army.

Nothing at all. Not one thin dime.

IMO, We should have left the next day. Certainly, IMO, we COULD have.

But We also Could have felt free to come back in again (in order to track SH down) as we saw fit over the course of those next few years.

IMO we owed the government and citizens of Iraq not ONE DAMNED THING (and we still don't owe them anything) even now).

Hundreds of Billions of US dollars wasted, IMO. And on a fallacy.


CS

When you invade a foreign country, you accept certain responsibilities. As it was said, the most minimal obligations are regulated by the Geneva convention, which the US signed. but there are moral responsibilities that by far exceed the convention, and that derive from the special circumstances and history of the war at question.

The war was prepared and planned in the early nineties. That's what makes it not a war of need, but a war of choice. The alleged reason that was given for it was that Iraq already had WMD and a running secret nuclear program (quoting the government: "We know he has them and we know where they are", quote end), and by that was posing a clear and present danger to europe and maybe even to the US. The Brits went as far as trying to sell it to the public that Iraqi nuclear missiles could reach London with less than 30 minutes warning time (the infamous "missile memo", which then showed to be the diploma work from ten years earlier, written by a politics student doing a possible hypothetical projection on the future - which they simply took parts from and copied them and claimed that were their actual intelligence info on the status quo). Also it was said that Saddam had links to 9/11, which is wrong, and that he cooperated with Al Quaeda, which also is wrong. After actual WMDs were not found, the arguments shifted, to removing Saddam for principle reasons, and liberating Iraq for the sake of the issue itself. However, that does not convince since so little was done to protect the Iraq (that was worth to be liberated) from the plundering and destructioin that then was braking lose. Even more important: reasons for a war that are given before a war, are reasons, and they may show as true or false. The given reasons all showed to be wrong. Reasons that are given after a war, are no reasons, but foul excuses.

Invasion of the amateurs: watch this film, I linked it before, and I do it again, since it is so damn true.

When you have seen it, then come back and tell us that America was not responsible for the chaos it created.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6182969183854471645


Chronological look at the fiasco in Iraq, especially decisions made in the spring of 2003 - and the backgrounds of those making decisions - immediately following the overthrow of Saddam: no occupation plan, an inadequate team to run the country, insufficient troops to keep order, and three edicts from the White House announced by Bremmer when he took over: no provisional Iraqi government, de-Ba'athification, and disbanding the Iraqi armed services. The film has chapters (from History to Consequences), and the talking heads are reporters, academics, soldiers, military brass, and former Bush-administration officials, including several who were in Baghdad in 2003.

[subchaser12]

Nice, I had not heard of the missle hitting England from Iraq before. I thought the American propaganda was far fetched! I guess that propaganda got some traction with commoners who don't know anything about such advanced weaponry. I am no expert on nuclear weapons or missles, but you just can't build one with some mad scientists turned loose in a junk yard. It doesn't work that way.

[Frame57]

OMFG

This thread needs more Israel and American Jew conspiracy theories. :roll:

Why would we be allied to the only Democracy amongst a sea of tyrannical Islamist states where terrorists are brainwashed in 'schools' by Imams instead of actually learning anything, burn my flag, shout "death to america", and cheer when a few of them fly airplanes into our buildings? Is that so difficult to grasp?

Skybird was right, the violence problem in the ME doesn't matter if Israel exists or not.Holy Crap! If Skybird said that then I missed it and am if full agreemnet for once with him. It is true. They kill themselves on a regualar basis. Sunni Vs, Shiites etc...

[baggygreen]

Its a crying shame that theres oil in them there hills.... Wouldn't life be much easier if there wasnt!!!:rotfl:

America's job? No, I don't think so.

However. The jewish community in the states, much like the irish, is enormous! many jews have reached influential positions. The influence is helped that the state of Israel is the eldest and arguably the most developed of the democracies in the region. It is a staging post if needed. It is a huge soure of income for military dollars.

The UN put them there, not the US. The UN is responsible for the issue today. Hell, give them Tasmania, noone in oz wants it!:lol:

Seriously though, look at it from both sides of the fence. Israel has been subjected to attacks from a sea of enemies, literally encircling them, outnumbered, since day dot. They've been invaded several times, and each time has beaten a numerically superior foe. very impressive record, you must all agree. Israel's capture of Syria's Golan heights was, in my opinion, spot on for them for the time and situation. As I understand it they're now giving it back to Syria? Internally, they're trying to deal with a population who in general doesnt want them there and attack civvies regularly.

On the other hand, theological enemies have been placed in your lands, and are in your eyes oppressing people who lived there first. They use their fancy pants technology and kill your politicians, your 'freedom fighters', and now they're building a dirty big wall to limit freedom of movement.

Realistically, I think the more extreme people from each side are doing what they perceive is in their peoples' best interests, trying to get the best out of the UN-created mess, whilst most people on both sides just want to get through life as easily as possible.

Situation is FUBAR.

[NefariousKoel]

Americans can burn the flag, we don't bulldoze their homes and shoot their kids in the face with rubber bullets do we? As for being brainwashed in schools, how is American "home schooling" by the christian right any different. They aren't learning anything, pick up a homeschooler textbook, it's Jesus this, Jesus that.

It's overly romantic on your part to say we bend over backswards so far just because Israel is a democracy.

Americans can burn the flag but have you seen that happen lately? We also don't blow up people in neighboring pizzerias or constantly launch missiles into neighboring cities. I don't see citizens in Nevada blowing up civilians in California and claiming they won't stop until Californians are completely wiped out.

If you see the Islamic culture in the mideast as poor innocents, there's no hope you'll ever figure it out. I suggest you peruse some Islamic message boards some time. Perhaps, then, you'll realize just how much hate, racism, and intolerance has festered in that culture.

[baggygreen]

I suggest you peruse some Islamic message boards some time. Perhaps, then, you'll realize just how much hate, racism, and intolerance has festered in that culture.Add the word 'fear', and apply it to christianity and judaism as well, and voila.

[Foxtrot]

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

[Skybird]

On the ground it's the Palestinian people that gets slowly erased from the map.
Hardly. They breed like ever - fast and intense. Several leaders of theirs even declared it a political goal to increase the population, so that the demographic pressure would finally break Israeli control. As a propaganda motive, a bigger crowd of suffering people also earns greater ammounts of sympathy from a compassionate world public. Huge families and fast rate of reproducing - are nothing but weapons. European states also are bashed by it, from within. By that, an artifical "youth bulge" (Gunnar Heinsohn) is created, adding aggressive potential to the society. Every society with an excessive ammount of male juveniles and young men tends towards stronger expansive aggression. What has been written down in a social-cultural theory just years ago here i the west, is known by Hamas and Fatah since decades. And the Arab world already declared in the mid-60s their intention to overcome the resisting West by placing demographic time-bombs in it's lands.

Not polite and even less politically correct to speak out this. But unfortunately: true.

Recommneded read: Gunnar Heinsohn - Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstief und Fall der Nationen

[Frame57]

maybe if the cowardly men that strap bombs on women would buy medicine things would go better....:nope:

[Skybird]

I think the escalation in hate on both sides is mutual in most cases. You make it sound as if Palesinians are holy saints full of peace and love for mankind. When Palestinians without discirmination shoot missiles into civilian areas in the hope to kill and hurt as many civilians as possible, then it is no wonder if soldiers in the army pay back by harassing them if given the opportnity - at least they do not intentionally aim at killing civilians, like the Palestinians do. And if Israel allows its religious nutheads to push for land that is not theirs and to kill their own prime ministre, then it is no wonder if Palestinians find all the inhumane cliches that Islam holds about Jews confirmed, and then hate Israelis even more. But one diffreence there always is, and I insist on it being seen as a very significant one. Israel does not commit intentional murder maongst civilians, but aims it weapons at activists and accept many complications and some failures just to do that, in order to keep the civilian casualties low. Palestinians time and again intentionally target civilians, and even find it acceptable that they expose their own people to risk in the hope of earning sympathies by making their own people die, and even arrange things so that Palestinians necessarily must bet killed in Israelis strikes aiming at militants and leaders. and that tells me something about the still different levels of ruthlessness of Israeli and Palestinian leaders. I hear you always complaining about the Israelis - but never about the palestinians. And that is what I call a biased attitude. Becasue there is all reason youn want to complain about Palestinians as well.

My position on the history of Israel'S founding I have made clear in the past, and repeatedly. Two generations later, I discourage ideological maximum demands, and recommend pragmatism.

The religious orthodox nutheads on both sides, however, you can - well, you can imagine what you can do with them in my opinion. That my sympathy for them is equal to zero you can conclude yourself, I assume. If you accuse them of heating up the fight, I certainly will not disagree. For their attitude in life they possibly will experience even more heat once they have faced their maker.

P.S. smuggling ion and out of Gaza is intense. Moles could learn some tricks from Palestinians tunnel-diggers. The border with Egypt consists of more tunnels than solid earth, it seems. You can get all important and even luxurious things in Gaza. If the oridnary man on the street has enough money to pay for it, is something different. The Palestinian smugglers taking advantage of their fellow people's misery are all the richer, on the other hand...

[Frame57]

Apologies....Let me re-phrase it...perhaps then instead of buying bombs they should build hospitals. Seems the arabs have money to burn.

[subchaser12]

Apologies....Let me re-phrase it...perhaps then instead of buying bombs they should build hospitals. Seems the arabs have money to burn.

In other words, "let them eat cake".

[NefariousKoel]

For once, I think Skybird is spot-on in his assessment.

Gaza, being an example, was left to run it's own matters and what happened? Instead of improving the situation in their new land, the 'Palestinians' decided to stockpile arms there and launch attacks into Israel once again.

When it was suggested that Egypt adopt Gaza as a territory the Egyptian gov't flat out refused. They don't want the troublemakers either. Actually, none of the countries in the area want them, they only use them to further their proxy-war against Israel. Why do you think there have been "refugee camps" in these other countries for half a century? The other arab states don't want them, either, and keep them corraled like livestock.

The real irony is.. a number of these Palestinian "refugees" work in Israel. Someone's example of Palestinians trying to get to hospitals in Israel, and obviously used to being let right through in the past, is even more so. I wonder how often they enter Egypt or Jordan, proper, and are allowed straight into the country to use their medical facilities. And the Palestinians in the Israeli government.. well, you can just blow those off as 'token' Pals huh?

In the end, I don't fault Israel for stiffening their borders considering how often their civilians are attacked. All the previous cease-fires and peace talks have been broken by various Palestinian groups who, evidentally, don't want some kind of agreement there.

[Skybird]

I don't complain much about Palestinians, I do complain about the Fatah opportunists who do nothing for their people and give room to the likes of Hamas to fill the gap, I think the Palestinians deserve much better than that, somebody like hmm let's say غاندي ;)

Voters are responsible for what they vote, and both Fatah and Hamas in their two regions were voted and/or supported by a majority of people that wanted them in power. They got what a majority of them wanted, so my congratulations. Not the first time that they demonstrated their remarkable talent to always line up with the wrong sides. Their choice - their responsibility for the consequences.

[Skybird]

Apologies....Let me re-phrase it...perhaps then instead of buying bombs they should build hospitals. Seems the arabs have money to burn.

Arab members of the OPEC sure have money to burn, but they don't care about Palestinians. Assuming that they do just because they're all Arabs is like assuming that Portugal cares about Finland because they're part of the same continent or that the US cares about Zimbabwé because they speak English.
No, the fate of the Palestinians is a nice proxy surrogate by which to expose Israel to international criticism without needing to engage in provoking that themselves - officially most Arab states have formal and practical peace conditions with them. For most Sunni states have understood that Israel does not threaten their internal autocratic power structures and thus they have learned to live with Israel's existence.

Also, the Palestinian attempt to topple the jordanian state that gave shelter to them and resulted in the black september and jordanian security killing that coup with lethal force, serves as an example of why you do not want to have the Palestinians in your house - they try to take it over. This, the constant corruption of their politial structures, and the many intrigues the Palestinians under Arafat were weaving in North African politics.

If such guests would knock at my door, I would show them my biggest gun immediately and wave them away, too.

[NefariousKoel]

Not quite, people with serious conditions try to go to Israeli hospitals not because they used to but because the Israeli blockade limits very much the hospitals' capacity in Gaza. Btw putting Israel on the same level as Egypt isn't really a compliment is it ?
So all those Palestinians complaining about being given security checks or having to drive further around a wall to get to work inside Israel should just be waved on through? Seriously, why don't they just go into Egypt or work there? Oh yeah, they won't let them in, period. My comparison still stands.


I don't fault them either, problem is, the borders they're stiffening are not theirs.
http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf
Btw who broke the cease fire few days ago ? But oh yes it was to prevent the Hamas from breaking the cease fire.
The original swiss cheese-like plan for separation was tossed out the window when Israel was formed. And promptly attacked. The Golan Heights sure weren't part of Israel but wars have a tendency to move the lines doesn't it? I guess you'd expect the victors to just give it all back to the aggressors and give them a hug and a reacharound while they're at it? Perhaps they should replace the missiles they were launching off the heights into Israeli cities just to show they really care. Using the GH as an example, of course. :lol: