The Israelis are too involved...

Post #58,413 by ChrisR 10/22/02 1:33:53 PM Reply	The Israelis are too involved... ...with their own interests (aka survival). That way, Israel get the antagonism and the US gets to be "friends" with the other nations. That formula is not particularly effective. Our friendship with Israel is very much at odds with our interests in oil. Much of the antagonism against the U.S. is exactly because of ties with Israel. Friendship with other states is promoted in spite of that, exactly because Israel has no positive impact on the production and stability of oil in the MidEast. Israel is a liability, not an asset, if the discussion is restricted to oil.
Post #58,420 by Brandioch 10/22/02 2:14:13 PM Reply	How much aid to we send to Israel? The Israelis are too involved... ...with their own interests (aka survival). Israel doesn't manufacture its own weapons. It depends upon the US for them. And it depends upon the US aid to finance those weapons. Our friendship with Israel is very much at odds with our interests in oil. Nope. Israel gives us a military base in the area that isn't a US military base. Much of the antagonism against the U.S. is exactly because of ties with Israel. Yes. But if it was a US military base instead of Israel, then the antagonism against Israel would be against the US. Considering that people in "friendly" countries over there like to shoot at our troops over there.... Not to mention the Palestinians bombing things/people in Israel. Friendship with other states is promoted in spite of that, exactly because Israel has no positive impact on the production and stability of oil in the MidEast. The situation the US likes BEST is for the mid-east to be a bunch of small, weak, bickering nations. That way, they all have to curry favour with the US for our weapons and dollars. When one nation starts to grow too big, we need a way of putting it down without doing it ourselves. That is where Israel comes in. Such as when they did the strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. Israel is a liability, not an asset, if the discussion is restricted to oil. Nope. Israel gives the radical elements in the region someone other than the US to focus on and to attack. Israel strikes at targets the US needs it to strike at without the US having to send US troops to do it. All of this keeps the region in the chaotic state that we like it to be in.
Post #58,443 by Mike 10/22/02 3:02:12 PM 10/22/02 3:42:01 PM Reply	Security Council resolution 487. Do you EVER ...... .....research beforehand? >>When one nation starts to grow too big, we need a way of putting it >>down without doing it ourselves. That is where Israel comes in. >>Such as when they did the strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. More fantasy from you. You want to believe so it must be true. In resolution 487 the Security Council roundly condemned Israel for the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility. It also called for Israel to open up its own program. The U.S.A chose not to excercise its veto power on this one. [link\|http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/418/74/IMG/NR041874.pdf?OpenElement\|Link] <removed childish comment> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Edited by Mike Oct. 22, 2002, 03:42:01 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,298 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:23:35 PM Reply	I notice you didn't contradict anything I posted. #1. There was a UN resolution against Israel. #2. It did not require Israel pay any damages. #3. It did not require Israel allow inspectors in. #4. It did not place ANY restrictions of Israel. So, the UN resolution against Israel for attacking a nuke plant in another country had the net effect of.... NOTHING. If you care to contradict any of these facts, please provide an example.
Post #59,300 by boxley 10/24/02 11:26:58 PM Reply	the other 82k resolutions AGAINST Israel UN resolutions have the same effect as a high school debate, regardless of what happens in the gym it is the drunken fighting outside in the dark that resolves the issues. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,316 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:50:04 PM Reply	Exactly. Until the UN passes actual SANCTIONS against Israel... -and- The US is willing to ENFORCE those sanctions..... Now, is there anyone willing to go on record with a prediction as to WHEN both of those will happen? I'll say, never. Unless the US reaches a point where it doesn't require a proxy over there.
Post #58,459 by ChrisR 10/22/02 3:42:41 PM Reply	Lots of opinion Israel doesn't manufacture its own weapons. It depends upon the US for them. And it depends upon the US aid to finance those weapons. Really beside the point. The question is not whether the U.S. supports the State of Israel - an obvious fact. The question is whether such support is the result of an explicit U.S. policy to protect it's oil interests. Nope. Israel gives us a military base in the area that isn't a US military base. In any conflict in the MidEast, U.S. troops will not be allowed to enter via Israel and no Israeli troops will be allowed to fight alongside U.S. troops. Israeli power is useless beyond the borders of Israel (though you could include the occupied territories if you're so inclined). Israeli military power is a negative beyond that range - at least when viewed through the lense of applying military force in the U.S. interests. Yes. But if it was a US military base instead of Israel, then the antagonism against Israel would be against the US. Considering that people in "friendly" countries over there like to shoot at our troops over there.... I don't know what planet you're from, but the one I take part in hardly works that way. Every time the Israelis piss off their neighbors, I don't think it reduces the amount of tension with the U.S. Indeed, I'd think it rather obvious that the exact opposite is the reaction. If the stuff your spouting were true, Osama and his ilk would have devoted all their effort against Israel, not the WTC. The situation the US likes BEST is for the mid-east to be a bunch of small, weak, bickering nations. That way, they all have to curry favour with the US for our weapons and dollars. Since bickering seems to be an inherent feature in the region, the U.S. doesn't have to do a whole lot. When one nation starts to grow too big, we need a way of putting it down without doing it ourselves. And which nation is it that you think should take over all the rest? Is Osama the natural leader of this idyllic united country? The only thing that seemingly unites these people seems to be their dislike of Israel. Besides, any effort to unite Arabia would (a) be bloody - Millions of lives lost; (b) likely non-democratic (similar to Hitler's effort to unite Europe); and (c). disruptive to every economy on the planet. Personally, I think the third point is the main reason the U.S. tries to prevent the concentration of power in a single despotic rulers hands. That is where Israel comes in. Such as when they did the strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. If you recall, the U.S. did not exactly ask Israel go out of it's way at the time. Looking back, after Desert Storm, we can say that the Israelis probably did us a favor. But I've seen no evidence that Israel did it in response to pressure from the U.S. foreign policy, much less for the stability of oil supplies. Nope. Israel gives the radical elements in the region someone other than the US to focus on and to attack. Israel strikes at targets the US needs it to strike at without the US having to send US troops to do it. All of this keeps the region in the chaotic state that we like it to be in. Pure opinion which is not backed up by the obvious facts. The support of Israel has a negative impact in our relations with the countries that supply us oil. Any forward strategic capability provided by such a proxy is more than outweighed by the problems that no coordination can be made in any military adventure.
Post #59,311 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:44:25 PM Reply	It's called a "position". It is supported with "facts". In any conflict in the MidEast, U.S. troops will not be allowed to enter via Israel and no Israeli troops will be allowed to fight alongside U.S. troops. Israeli power is useless beyond the borders of Israel (though you could include the occupied territories if you're so inclined). Then I guess a certain reactor in Iraq did not get bombed by Isael. There, that's a factual counter to your statement about the limitations of the Israeli military. That means I've countered one of your "facts" that you've tried to use to invalidate my position. Every time the Israelis piss off their neighbors, I don't think it reduces the amount of tension with the U.S. Now, this is what is called a "strawman". You are correct that it does not reduce the amount of tension with the US. But, as I never claimed that it would, your statement is invalid in this discussion. Since bickering seems to be an inherent feature in the region, the U.S. doesn't have to do a whole lot. Not a lot. Just ensure that there isn't a SINGLE nation capable of unification within that region. And which nation is it that you think should take over all the rest? Is Osama the natural leader of this idyllic united country? The only thing that seemingly unites these people seems to be their dislike of Israel. Cute, you use the word "idyllic" when I never said it would be. No, it probably wouldn't be Osama. More likely it would have been Saddam but that was before his invasion of Kuwait. Besides, any effort to unite Arabia would (a) be bloody - Millions of lives lost; (b) likely non-democratic (similar to Hitler's effort to unite Europe); and (c). disruptive to every economy on the planet. I never said it wouldn't be. Personally, I think the third point is the main reason the U.S. tries to prevent the concentration of power in a single despotic rulers hands. If you will expand that from "despotic rulers" to "anyone except the US", I will agree with that. Pure opinion which is not backed up by the obvious facts. Whether it is backed up or not is your opinion. Suffice to say that the facts do not contradict it. The support of Israel has a negative impact in our relations with the countries that supply us oil. I will counter this claim by pointing out that we are not paying more per barrel than any other non-mid-eastern country nor are any of them limiting the amount of oil we can buy. If there is a "negative impact", it doesn't seem to affect anything. Any forward strategic capability provided by such a proxy is more than outweighed by the problems that no coordination can be made in any military adventure. Only if you look at it as if we needed to coordinate the US and Israeli militaries. We don't. As for strategic capability, I will again point out that Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. Now, if Iraq had managed to acquire nukes back then, the region would be quite different today. That seems to meet the criteria for "strategic".
Post #59,578 by a6l6e6x 10/25/02 10:52:14 PM Reply	Re: Israel doesn't manufacture its own weapons. Do you recall bluke's mention (with pride) of the Israeli Merkava tank? The Israeli nuclear weapons came from US? [link\|http://www.fas.org/news/israel/e20000502pentagon.htm\|The Jericho 1 missile] and the [link\|http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500257272-500395340-502353335-0,00.html\|Arrow missile] are American? I did not know that. Alex "I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain. -- Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)
Post #59,689 by boxley 10/26/02 10:54:17 PM Reply	psst wanna buy an uzi? will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,705 by a6l6e6x 10/27/02 12:11:05 AM Reply	That's a Bingo! :) Alex "I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain. -- Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)

Welcome to IWETHEY!