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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

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)

[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.

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


CS

[joegrundman]

Oh Puh-leese CS.

[AntEater]

Originally Posted by 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).

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:

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Christopher Snow

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

[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]

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.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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