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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?do...69183854471645

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.

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...

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.

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.

Add the word 'fear', and apply it to christianity and judaism as well, and voila.

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.

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

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

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...