Warning: controversial topic inside (Israel)

[Dorian Gray]

I got into a serious discussion with my stepfather about this, and I have to admit my knee was jerking all over the place. But after I had a chance to think about it, I had to admit he had a point:

We should abandon Israel.

Why? Because we don't get anything from Israel. The only reason we protect Israel is because it is the home/origin of Christianity. Other than that religious reason, there is no economic, strategic, tactical or political reason why we should support Israel.

The Lebanon situation is the latest thing. Over 2 soldiers being kidnapped, Israel invaded Lebanon, displaced nearly a million people, and completely failed to dislodge Hezbollah. On top of that, Israel comes away with a shiner, because Hezbollah is rebuilding the infrastructure. Hezbollah comes out of this looking great! It only makes us look stupid for supporting Israel.

Strategically, we already have bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE and Iraq. We don't need Israel. Israel has lots of weapons and nuclear weapons it can use to defend itself. If it doesn't do what we tell it to, we should cut it off and diplomatically spank it.

The benefits would be enormous. Half the reason so many terrorists hate America is its support of Israel. So it makes sense that someone - say, a president - that truly wants to fight the war on terror would take every step to reduce or eliminate it. If we're honest, we will admit that it's really a war on terror against the United States.

And if Iran gets nuclear weapons, we'll use the same strategy we used against the USSR - threat of mutually assured destruction, with the exception that it will be a fairly one-sided destruction should Iran decide to fire nukes on us.

'Israel is our ally and we should defend it'? Well, is a country that frequently gets itself into trouble and does stupid things because we have its back truly an 'ally'? Or are we being used? We should act like the most powerful nation on earth and serve our interests. If Israel doesn't do what we want, we should cut them off.

Am I being sarcastic or ironic, those of you who know me? Honestly, no, I am not. Am I suddenly anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic? No, I am talking about Israel the political entity, not Jews. All you 'he's anti-Zion' shouldn't forget that there are Christians and Muslims in Israel too.

My ultimate dream would be to convince or coerce all nations of any reasonable power - Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, the US - to stop meddling in the Middle East, stop creating countries like we have with Israel and Iraq at least, and let them form their own borders, countries and political structures - just like Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the US have. Any of us stepping in there and meddling around is like having the FBI referee a pickup basketball game.

[demon]

That`s you off a few Christmas card lists around here;)

edited to add...but I`ve just added you to mine;)

[latent aaaack]

I agree that the US has little to no interest in building democracy or anything for that matter in SW Asia. That the US is using nation-building to combat terrorism will come to be accepted as one of the worst mistakes a US gov't ever made. The often cited fact that Israel is SW Asia's only democracy should mean nothing to the US except that it's good for Israel.

However with nuke proliferation I believe that the soonest the bombs start falling on whichever country is not in accordance with non-proliferation, the easier it's going to be in the long term, but unfortunetly no one thinks in the long term.

[WildCat]

We should abandon Israel.
Yes, we should withdraw all US forces from Israel immediately. Oh wait, there aren't any there. So how do we withdraw from a country we are not in?

[demon]

Like maybe not rushing bombs to them so they can kill as many Lebanese as they can before a cease fire is called. That sort of thing. What an awful thought eh?
And then there`s all those vetoed UN resolutions.
Good one WC.

[WildCat]

My ultimate dream would be to convince or coerce all nations of any reasonable power - Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, the US - to stop meddling in the Middle East, stop creating countries like we have with Israel and Iraq at least, and let them form their own borders, countries and political structures - just like Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the US have. Any of us stepping in there and meddling around is like having the FBI referee a pickup basketball game.
This is a fantastic idea. All those countries created their own borders through hundreds of years full of warfare and deaths numbering in the tens of millions. Hell, there were tens of millions of deaths in the last century alone as those countries hashed out their borders the correct (according to Dorian Gray) way.

I say we just give Israel the green light to nuke all their enemies out of existence (and they have that capability), after all it's none of our concern. In fact, it helps us out w/ a few problems as well - we just need to have our oil workers wear radiation suits.

Brilliant solution Dorian!

[WildCat]

Like maybe not rushing bombs to them so they can kill as many Lebanese as they can before a cease fire is called. That sort of thing. What an awful thought eh?
And then there`s all those vetoed UN resolutions.
Good one WC.
They want to buy bombs, we want to sell them. As Dorian says, none of our concern what happens there, right?

[Walter Wayne]

The reason I think they should have support of the wet has nothing to do with economic, strategic, tactical or political reasons. Israel, even if not lilly white, should have the means to defend itself.

I also think that Gulf War I was a war that should be fought. Not because of oil, but because a sovereign nation was invaded on no grounds at all. The fact oil probably had a lot to do with the decision to go in was unfortunate, but I am glad the was fought.

Walt

[Azure]

They want to buy bombs, we want to sell them. As Dorian says, none of our concern what happens there, right?

In fact, it helps the US economy to sell them bombs.

Surely it isn't the US' fault that Israel 'may' kill innocent civilians with the bombs they bought, eh?

[WildCat]

Surely it isn't the US' fault that Israel 'may' kill innocent civilians with the bombs they bought, eh?
Of course not. None of our concern, according to the OP.

[Azure]

Of course not. None of our concern, according to the OP.

Well it should be our concern when innocent people die, but it sure as hell isn't our fault.

Is it the fault of fast-food stories when we become obese from eating their food? Same thing.

[WildCat]

Well it should be our concern when innocent people die, but it sure as hell isn't our fault.
I used to think that way, but Dorian Gray has shown me the light. Who cares what happens over there?

[Azure]

I used to think that way, but Dorian Gray has shown me the light. Who cares what happens over there?

Too late to have that mindset, although I wish we would have gone that route when the whole mess got started.

Using the idea of isolation, given the circumstances right now, is a poor choice. IMO of course. :)

[WildCat]

Too late to have that mindset, although I wish we would have gone that route when the whole mess got started.
That "whole mess" got a big booster when Germany decided to take care of their problem w/ the Jews. Then the rest of the world decided to send them to Israel.

Of course, history is a continuum and the problems in the Middle East don't begin nor end w/ Israel. The people there are still miffed over the Crusades, after all. That would be their rallying cry if there had never been an Israel to kick around. Just my opinion, of course.

[webfusion]

The only reason we protect Israel is because it is the home/origin of Christianity.

???

Judaism.


Strategically, we already have bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE and Iraq. We don't need Israel.

Green Pine/THEL/Intel/ELBIT : Israel is home-base for more strategic assets than just 'bases' for the fleets. Anyway, Haifa is a stragetic port for the Mediterranean Fleets. It keeps a check on Latakia. You know where & what Latakia is, right?

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1208
There is now the general anticipation of a military clash erupting, with the United States & Israel on one side, and Iran and possibly Syria on the other, some time from today until November.

This expectation has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types – 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greecian, 3-5 German, and five American; thousands of Marines – French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 US Marines.


If Israel doesn't do what we want, we should cut them off.

What do you want?
The US Congress is representing the "we" and the voting there is clearly not even remotely headed in the direction of 'cutting them off' ----- unless you know something I don't know. Do share.

[demon]

I`m very sure that when Dorian talks about abandoning Israel, he doesn`t mean leaving it to be destroyed by enemies, but his post is a good one because it shows how very quick some people are (psychopathically quick), to leap to the attractive scenario of Israel nuking all it`s potential enemies with the inevitable result that millions of innocent lives would be lost, Muslim lives of course. I can see how this is very attractive to those who support Israel, afterall, it`s a state founded and born from the poisonous womb of terrorism and racism. Old habits die hard as they say, for Israel and its amen corner of creepy supporters.
In reality of course, these perceived enemies don`t have a cat`s chance in hell of actually doing anything like that but it`s always a good sound bite and justification for anything that Israel sees fit to do.
Much like 9/11 is used as the crime that justifies all subsequent crimes committed by this craven US administration...good to see however that it is finding itself increasingly despised and untrusted by its own citizens...parallels there with Israeli citizens and their craven leadership too.

Anyway, I think it`s pretty clear what Dorian is talking about, but I`m sure he`ll get back to us on it.

[webfusion]

demon supports Dorian:...his post is a good one...

No, it's not ---- if measuring 'good' objectively means the post contains much in the way of facts, reality and accuracy.

[brodski]

They want to buy bombs, we want to sell them. As Dorian says, none of our concern what happens there, right?
This is disingenuous, given the huge amount of aid which goes to Israel ($2,280,000,000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) in military "loans" for 2006) they're not "buying" bombs from the US at all. Now I believe that the US should continue to support Israel in it's self defence (that doesn't men that they're beyond criticism, I get pissed off when they try to smuggle arms though my country for instance), but the idea that the US just sells arms to Israel rather than actively funds their military activities is unsupportable.

[webfusion]

This is disingenuous, given the huge amount of aid which goes to Israel they're not "buying" bombs from the US at all. ,,, the idea that the US just sells arms to Israel rather than actively funds their military activities is unsupportable.

The IDF spends the available money as they see fit, on the open market. Their purchases are allocated to best utilize what is in their overall budget. So, yes, they "buy" a wide range of munitions from US suppliers -- which was the whole point of the remark by Azure.

Just like they "buy" submarines from Germany.

[marksman]

I`m very sure that when Dorian talks about abandoning Israel, he doesn`t mean leaving it to be destroyed by enemiesI'd like Dorian to clarify that point,because it seemed to me that was exactly what he suggested.

[demon]

Web:
"Just like they "buy" submarines from Germany."

Glad you put "Buy" in inverted commas there.
Those Israelis must be good negotiators too, they even convinced the Germans to pay for a third of the cost...

quote:
Germany announces plans to deliver two submarines to Israel
By The Associated Press

Germany plans to deliver two submarines to Israel, a German Defense Ministry spokesman said Wednesday.

German shipyard HDW signed a contract with Israeli authorities on July 6 to build the two submarines, the spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

The spokesman said the German government will finance about one-third of the construction cost, which has been estimated at $1.3 billion.

He provided no further details...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754077.html


Then we get the following...what`s the latest on this Webbie?

quote:
Aug. 25, 2006 20:05 | Updated Aug. 26, 2006 12:23
German sub delivery postponed
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Two new submarines which Israel would receive under a deal it signed with Germany last month, will only start being delivered in 2010, German government spokesman Thomas Steg said Friday.

Steg added that the submarines would not be equipped to fire nuclear weapons. A German defense official said, however, that it was possible that Israel would make structural changes to the vessels upon delivery and would widen the missile launchers aboard, allowing for the installation of cruise missiles...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525945057&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Azure]

Whats your point Demon?

They still buy them, right?

[Azure]

That "whole mess" got a big booster when Germany decided to take care of their problem w/ the Jews. Then the rest of the world decided to send them to Israel.

Although you get the prophecy types saying how it was all planned from the beginning. :rolleyes:

Yes, they annoy me too.

Of course, history is a continuum and the problems in the Middle East don't begin nor end w/ Israel. The people there are still miffed over the Crusades, after all. That would be their rallying cry if there had never been an Israel to kick around. Just my opinion, of course.

Contrary to the belief of most wackos out there, of course.

You're absolutely correct. :)

[Mycroft]

This is disingenuous, given the huge amount of aid which goes to Israel ($2,280,000,000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) in military "loans" for 2006) they're not "buying" bombs from the US at all. Now I believe that the US should continue to support Israel in it's self defence (that doesn't men that they're beyond criticism, I get pissed off when they try to smuggle arms though my country for instance), but the idea that the US just sells arms to Israel rather than actively funds their military activities is unsupportable.

Why do you put loans in quotes? As far as I know, Israel is one of the few nations that repays such loans.

[Mycroft]

Glad you put "Buy" in inverted commas there.
Those Israelis must be good negotiators too,

Well of course they are mostly Jews, after all. :oldroll:


…they even convinced the Germans to pay for a third of the cost...

Wha…!


Germany announces plans to deliver two submarines to Israel
By The Associated Press

Germany plans to deliver two submarines to Israel, a German Defense Ministry spokesman said Wednesday.

German shipyard HDW signed a contract with Israeli authorities on July 6 to build the two submarines, the spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

The spokesman said the German government will finance about one-third of the construction cost, which has been estimated at $1.3 billion.

I don’t know about where you live, but out here “finance” doesn’t mean “pay for”, it means “loan money.” Which means Israel pays two thirds up front, then pays the last third in payments at interest.

[brodski]

Why do you put loans in quotes? As far as I know, Israel is one of the few nations that repays such loans.

I wasn't aware of that, "loans" are usually a euphemism for "soft loans", or "aid".

[brodski]

I don’t know about where you live, but out here “finance” doesn’t mean “pay for”, it means “loan money.” Which means Israel pays two thirds up front, then pays the last third in payments at interest.

In the UK the term is ambiguous, when used by UK Government sources it can men either “pay for” or it can mean “lend money to pay for”, or it can mean “lend money to pay for, but we don’t really ever expect to get eth money back”.
Divided by a common language again eh? ;)

[brodski]

The IDF spends the available money as they see fit, on the open market. Their purchases are allocated to best utilize what is in their overall budget. So, yes, they "buy" a wide range of munitions from US suppliers -- which was the whole point of the remark by Azure.

Just like they "buy" submarines from Germany.

can I ask if this source is accurate, it seems to indicate that there are conditions placed on who Israel buys arms from with US loaned money.

Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 256 percent ($555 million of $2.2 billion in 2004) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. From here (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/USpolicy.html#r7)

[davefoc]

In fact, it helps the US economy to sell them bombs.

Surely it isn't the US' fault that Israel 'may' kill innocent civilians with the bombs they bought, eh?

Azure, I am not sure whether you are serious or not with this comment.

You do understand that the US gives the Israelis the money that the Israelis use to buy the bombs don't you? So does it help the US economy to give bombs away?

Could anything the US gives away help the US economy? Could we just give the the Israelis three billion dollars worth of light bulbs a year and get the same benefit to the economy? And if giving away three billion dollars worth of stuff helps the US economy could we just give away more stuff and help the US economy even more?

[The Atheist]

Well it should be our concern when innocent people die, but it sure as hell isn't our fault.

Is it the fault of fast-food stories when we become obese from eating their food? Same thing.

What an outstanding comparison! I get it:

On one hand, supplying weapons of war which are then fired at people, killing innocents, among others.

On the other, a person choosing to buy unhealthy food then dying through being too stupid or lazy to avoid the health problems caused by it.

Obvious connection, thanks. Maybe there's an opportunity here for MacDonald's - cut out the middleman. Build restaurants in Iran, loading thousands of kilos of C4 under the floor. Wait till it's full on opening day and blow up as many ragheads as possible. Send Israeli Government the bill, they borrow Uncle sam's green to pay for it, everybody wins!

How much are Macca's shares?

[brodski]

Azure, I am not sure whether you are serious or not with this comment.

You do understand that the US gives the Israelis the money that the Israelis use to buy the bombs don't you? So does it help the US economy to give bombs away?

Could anything the US gives away help the US economy? Could we just give the the Israelis three billion dollars worth of light bulbs a year and get the same benefit to the economy? And if giving away three billion dollars worth of stuff helps the US economy could we just give away more stuff and help the US economy even more?

It's just good, old fashioned Keynesian demand management. Which it a part of the reason that so many libertarians are anti Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Whats your point Demon?

They still buy them, right?

IIRC, the new Joint Strike Fighter is going to be bought by Israel, with money provided by the USA.

[a_unique_person]

I got into a serious discussion with my stepfather about this, and I have to admit my knee was jerking all over the place. But after I had a chance to think about it, I had to admit he had a point:

We should abandon Israel.



Does it have to be either/or? The USA is the sole superpower. Surely it can use it's good offices to help resolve the middle east situation. Just as I don't think the USA should be out there stirring up trouble, eg, Iraq, isolating itself doesn't work either, early WWII. Can we get a peaceful resolution to the problem with the least suffering on all sides?

[WildCat]

The spokesman said the German government will finance about one-third of the construction cost, which has been estimated at $1.3 billion.
95% of my house was financed by the bank, does this mean the money was a gift to me and I can stop those payments now?

What a load of crap.

[WildCat]

This is disingenuous, given the huge amount of aid which goes to Israel ($2,280,000,000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) in military "loans" for 2006) they're not "buying" bombs from the US at all.
This is less than 4% of Israel's defense budget.

Anyway, this is not the point of Dorian's OP. It seems to me he wants them to fight it out in a great big war or wars, which is the way the other countries on his list settled their current borders.

Now, if there's a different interpretation to it I'm all ears, or eyes in this case.

[brodski]

Why do you put loans in quotes? As far as I know, Israel is one of the few nations that repays such loans.

I misread the table, that's grant, not loans, it looks like the loan component of aid has been phased out, now it's all grants.

[brodski]

This is less than 4% of Israel's defense budget.

Anyway, this is not the point of Dorian's OP. It seems to me he wants them to fight it out in a great big war or wars, which is the way the other countries on his list settled their current borders.

Now, if there's a different interpretation to it I'm all ears, or eyes in this case.

I'm having a difficult time getting accurate figures, according to this report the US funds 20% of Israels arms purchases. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2293610,00.html

Now, I agree that this was not the point of Dorian's OP, and I disagree with the points I could see in the op, but to say that the US is Just selling bombs to Israel is wrong, you're paying for anywhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 5 of them.

[webfusion]

IIRC, the new Joint Strike Fighter is going to be bought by Israel, with money provided by the USA.

IAF is also planning on procuring 6 C130J Hercules transports plus associated support & equipment at a cost of about $500 million, as well as a $100 million upgrade of Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters to extend their operational lifespan by 20 years.

As in all cases of military aid provided by the USA for buyback programs, the money is fungible.

That cash (some in outright aid, some in interest-bearing loans) comes from the United States Treasury, and goes into the Defense Industries' pockets who profit.


If I were a helicopter mechanic working in the United-Technologies-owned Stratford, Connecticut Sikorsky plant ----- the idea of Israel spending $100-million would greatly appeal to me. It's just some of my tax dollars coming back to my pocket, and keeping me employed.

[brodski]

If I were a helicopter mechanic working in the United-Technologies-owned Stratford, Connecticut Sikorsky plant ----- the idea of Israel spending $100-million would greatly appeal to me. It's just some of my tax dollars coming back to my pocket, and keeping me employed.

So you approve of Keynesian demand management?

[davefoc]

I think this might be a special kind of keynesian economic theory. Perhaps we might call it Bushcoian. First the US encourages Israel to go to war against Lebanon and bomb the crap out of them and then the US funds part of the rebuilding of Lebanon. A double win for the economy. First the US helps its economy by giving away bombs and then the US helps its economy by giving away aid to Lebanon for rebuilding.

[Mycroft]

I think this might be a special kind of keynesian economic theory. Perhaps we might call it Bushcoian.

IIRC, significant aid to Israel began with the Carter administration. I may be wrong on that, but it was certainly far before either of the Bush administrations.

First the US encourages Israel to go to war against Lebanon and bomb the crap out of them and then the US funds part of the rebuilding of Lebanon.

In what way did the US encourage Israel to go to war against Lebanon?

A double win for the economy. First the US helps its economy by giving away bombs and then the US helps its economy by giving away aid to Lebanon for rebuilding.

I have not heard of the US rebuilding Lebanon in any significant way. Can you cite a source for this?

[Azure]

Azure, I am not sure whether you are serious or not with this comment.

You do understand that the US gives the Israelis the money that the Israelis use to buy the bombs don't you? So does it help the US economy to give bombs away?

Could anything the US gives away help the US economy? Could we just give the the Israelis three billion dollars worth of light bulbs a year and get the same benefit to the economy? And if giving away three billion dollars worth of stuff helps the US economy could we just give away more stuff and help the US economy even more?

Maybe you should Google how much Israel 'buys' from the US, before you make that assumption.

They buy a hell of a lot more then 2.8 billion dollars with of military equipment.

[Azure]

What an outstanding comparison! I get it:



No you don't.

[davefoc]

This is a site that lists the US aid to Israel by year:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

quite a bit of it seems to precede the presidency of Carter.

ETA: One thing that might be added into the list of how much Israel actually costs the US is the aid to Egypt. There is no question that this aid was provided as part of the deal that ended the hostilities between Egypt and Israel. So the US dumps a lot of money into Egypt, for almost the sole aim of securing peace between Israel and a neighoboring country.

And there is a contribution to Israel every year from private citizens that is not included in the figures listed in the chart I linked to.

As far as the US encouraging Israel:
Charles Krauthammer seems to think so:
America's green light for Israel to defend itself is seen as a favor to Israel. But that is a tendentious, misleadingly partial analysis. The green light -- indeed, the encouragement -- is also an act of clear self-interest. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat.

ETA: And I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong here as well: The US refused to support a ceasefire until the war had gone on for quite awhile. The US supplied bombs to Israel during the war. Stories were released to the effect that this was an area where Bush overruled Condi Rice's desires to try to end the war earlier. Plus I think there is a pretty good case to be made that Israel isn't going to go pissing off its main benefactor by fighting a war that its main benefactor doesn't approve of.


As to the US providing aid to Lebanon for rebuilding:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060831123055ndyblehs5.626857e-03

And a brief aside:
I was attempting to make a humourous comment about what I think is the stupidest reason for providng massive aid to Israel. The idea that when the US gives Israel stuff that it is in some way a benefit to the US economy. This is such a dumb idea that it amazes me that it continues to get trotted out by people that have, IMHO, a reasonably rational view of the world. Anybody that has had the most elementary economics class has heard the question about whether the government should hire people to run around and break windows to bolster the economy. It is a double win. On one hand we massively improve employment in the glass and window installation sector of the economy and we provide employment for people to break windows. What is wrong with this idea? Of course the problem is that we have to raise a bunch of taxes to pay for all this which reduces employment in other sectors of the economy that are actually producing stuff that people need or want. Why this isn't obvious to everybody that is intelligent enough to post on JREF is beyond me.

[Azure]

IIRC, the new Joint Strike Fighter is going to be bought by Israel, with money provided by the USA.

Yeah, its called a 'loan.'

Goes on record too, BTW. With such a significant amount of money, surely you don't expect it to be repayed within a year, eh?

[davefoc]

From this site:
http://alawda.rso.wisc.edu/aidtoisrael.htm

US loans to Israel are also a source of much confusion. Israel owes the U.S. government almost $3 billion in economic and military loans. It is often stated by Israeli officials that Israel has never defaulted on a loan from the United States. This is true, but only because loans are waived before default can occur. From FY 1994 through FY 1998, Israel received $29 billion in waived loans. Currently, the total U.S. contingent liability for Israeli loans the amount the US will owe if outstanding loans are not repaid is about $10 billion.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, its called a 'loan.'

Goes on record too, BTW. With such a significant amount of money, surely you don't expect it to be repayed within a year, eh?
*deleted*

[Mycroft]

quite a bit of it seems to precede the presidency of Carter.

So you would agree that naming such a policy after Bush is ludicrous?

ETA: One thing that might be added into the list of how much Israel actually costs the US is the aid to Egypt. There is no question that this aid was provided as part of the deal that ended the hostilities between Egypt and Israel. So the US dumps a lot of money into Egypt, for almost the sole aim of securing peace between Israel and a neighoboring country.

I disagree that aid given to Egypt should be counted as aid given to Israel. If you believe the aid to Egypt should stop, that is an entirely different topic.

And there is a contribution to Israel every year from private citizens that is not included in the figures listed in the chart I linked to.

Irrelevant. Private citizens are free to send money wherever they want to, and I’m sure there is not a nation on this planet whose economy is not benefiting from money sent from private citizens in the US.

As far as the US encouraging Israel:
Charles Krauthammer seems to think so:

AFAIK, a green light to self-defense is the default position of the United States towards any country. Krauthammer is not speaking for US policy, but is only speculating that a common self-interest is also served. The “green light” seems more a neutral we won’t stop you than an actual encouragement.

And a brief aside:
I was attempting to make a humourous comment about what I think is the stupidest reason for providng massive aid to Israel. The idea that when the US gives Israel stuff that it is in some way a benefit to the US economy.

Well, it’s something of a straw-man.

Nobody says the US should give aid to Israel only because it benefits the US economy, that would be a stupid position. No, the benefit to the economy is a mitigating factor to the cost. Yes, it costs us money, but because that money is spent in the USA, we recover a good portion of those costs. Think of it as Walmart donating store merchandise to charity; it costs Walmart a lot less than if they donated an equivalent amount of cash.

From this site:
http://alawda.rso.wisc.edu/aidtoisrael.htm

When the site opens with a Palestinian flag, openly campaigns for divestment from Israel, quotes "Electronic Intifada" as source material, claims Rachel Corie was murdered and uses highly inflammatory rhetoric such as “apartheid wall”, I tend to be skeptical of assertions such as that one that are not sourced to something less biased.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, its called a 'loan.'

Goes on record too, BTW. With such a significant amount of money, surely you don't expect it to be repayed within a year, eh?


Australia is to buy 100 fighters, at a price of $16 billion, say $12 billion at exchange rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1673139.htm

Israel is to buy the same number for something like $5 billion.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s/index.php

[Azure]

Australia is to buy 100 fighters, at a price of $16 billion, say $12 billion at exchange rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1673139.htm

Israel is to buy the same number for something like $5 billion.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s/index.php

What does cost have to do with a loan?

The US values their relationship with Israel very highly, I think that is pretty obvious.

[a_unique_person]

It is selling the JSF to Israel for less than half what other countries pay for it.

[Azure]

It is selling the JSF to Israel for less than half what other countries pay for it.

Like I said, that is because of the special relationship the US has with Israel.

What else is new?

[a_unique_person]

"special relationship". It's effectively giving them 50JSF for free.

[Azure]

"special relationship". It's effectively giving them 50JSF for free.

Free?

5 billion dollars is free?

:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

They are receiving 100.

[Azure]

They are receiving 100.

For free?

[a_unique_person]

Loans with Repayment Waived
The United States has not canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, but the
U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as
loans. Following the 1973 war, President Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for
Israel, including loans for which repayment would be waived. Israel preferred that the aid
be in the form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel
to oversee a grant program. Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been
in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called
loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2003,
Israel has received more than $45 billion in waived loans. (Egypt also receives some of its
U.S. military assistance in the form of loans with repayment waived. In 1990, the United
States canceled $6.7 billion in past military debts that Egypt owed to the United States.)



http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB85066.pdf#search=%22CRS%20Issue%20waived%20loans %20israel%22

[demon]

"Free?
5 billion dollars is free?"

Yes, the vicious little settler state makes it`s own hard way in the world, they don`t sponge of anyone at all.
What a laugh.
They should be made to make their own way, then we might see a little less chest thumping and a little more humanity out of them.
It`ll happen.

[a_unique_person]

For free? We could go on like this all day, couldn't we? 100 planes at half price, effectively 50 for free.

[Azure]

We could go on like this all day, couldn't we? 100 planes at half price, effectively 50 for free.

Ah, so you're moving the goal posts in order to prove that the US is 'giving away' some of them.

And shutup Demon, I really don't care about your rhetoric BS.

[demon]

azure:
"And shutup Demon, I really don't care about your rhetoric BS"

Ah, didn`t like that did ya? "Shutup" indeed" Are you imagining that you are a guard at a West Bank checkpoint or something? Fantasy of yours maybe? Well it don`t work around here matey.

So you cared so little that you just had to reply? Ah, ok, I`ll believe ya:)

You can always put me on ignore Humpty `cause i wont be shutting up, it`ll be no loss to me.

[a_unique_person]

Ah, so you're moving the goal posts in order to prove that the US is 'giving away' some of them.

And shutup Demon, I really don't care about your rhetoric BS.

If the actual price for a friendly nation like Australia is effectively double the price Israel is getting them for, then they are effectively giving away 50, because only half of them are being sold for their actual price. That is, Israel is getting them for less than they cost. ( i am pretty sure I am safe in assuming their is not a 100% mark up).

[Azure]

If the actual price for a friendly nation like Australia is effectively double the price Israel is getting them for, then they are effectively giving away 50, because only half of them are being sold for their actual price. That is, Israel is getting them for less than they cost. ( i am pretty sure I am safe in assuming their is not a 100% mark up).

Or you could take the 5 billion, and divide it amongst 100 planes, and figure out how much each plane is being sold for.

That way none of them are being given away for free.

[a_unique_person]

Or you could take the 5 billion, and divide it amongst 100 planes, and figure out how much each plane is being sold for.

That way none of them are being given away for free.

Fine, they are going for less than cost.

[davefoc]

Mycroft wrote:
Nobody says the US should give aid to Israel only because it benefits the US economy,
You just don't friggin get it. Giving away money doesn't help anybody's economy. Period. What does it matter where Israel spends the money? If they throw it in the ocean then it would be good for the US because the US wouldn't have to use up resources to supply product in return for the money. If they spend it in China, then the time is delayed for awhile before the US has to supply resources for the money, but presumably the Chisnese will eventually buy American stuff with their dollars and the US will then have to use up resources when China cashes in their dollars.

The idea that giving away cash is good for the US economy as any part of the justification for the aid to Israel is crap. period. no truth to it. Categorically false. A desperate grasping at straws by people who are looking for any reason at all to continue probably one of the most counterproductive aid programs in the history of the world.

My own view is that the US give away program is driven a great deal by a corrupt system of kickbacks from American arms manufacturers. The irony here, if there is any, is that a whole lot of the reason that the US gives arms to Israel has nothing to do with the benefit of Israel. And Israel might be one hell of a lot better off right now if they had been less successful at turning Israel into a dependent state on US aid.

[Mycroft]

It is selling the JSF to Israel for less than half what other countries pay for it.

They're getting different products.

From your article:

"...Israeli planes generally undergo heavy modifications to incorporate Israeli electronics and weapons systems, and the F-35 will be no exception..."

Israel doesn't buy complete planes. They buy a stripped down version and then they pack it with their own avionics and weapons. I read an article once about the modifications they do to their F-16, and it's very extensive.

[Mycroft]

Mycroft wrote:

You just don't friggin get it.

Yes, Dave, I do. Please stay calm.


Giving away money doesn't help anybody's economy. Period.

Moving money helps the economy however that’s accomplished.

Some methods of moving money are more helpful than others.

Giving it away to someone who spends it in your store doesn’t help your economy nearly as much as just spending that money yourself, but it does put people to work, put their payroll into the economy, and build up that tax base.

Again, nobody claims that helping the economy is anyone’s sole motivation for aid to Israel, but it is a mitigating factor.

[Dorian Gray]

Yes, we should withdraw all US forces from Israel immediately. Oh wait, there aren't any there. So how do we withdraw from a country we are not in?
If I had ever mentioned pulling out troops in the OP, you'd have an excellent point. Alas, I didn't, so you don't.

[Dorian Gray]

This is a fantastic idea. All those countries created their own borders through hundreds of years full of warfare and deaths numbering in the tens of millions. Hell, there were tens of millions of deaths in the last century alone as those countries hashed out their borders the correct (according to Dorian Gray) way.

I say we just give Israel the green light to nuke all their enemies out of existence (and they have that capability), after all it's none of our concern. In fact, it helps us out w/ a few problems as well - we just need to have our oil workers wear radiation suits.

Brilliant solution Dorian! I'm sending you an "I (Heart) Hyperbolic Strawmen" so you can accomplish the same thing with clothing that you're attempting here.

[Dorian Gray]

Of course not. None of our concern, according to the OP. No more our concern than it's K-Mart's concern what people do with the guns they sell.

You do realize that we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia as well, don't you?

[Dorian Gray]

???

Judaism. And Jesus Christ was born...... where? Christianity.


http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1208
Europe mobilizing a force shows that we don't necessarily need to be there.

[Dorian Gray]

I'd like Dorian to clarify that point,because it seemed to me that was exactly what he suggested.
Countries in that region have ganged up on Israel many times, and Israel has always prevailed. "Abandoning them to be destroyed by their enemies" is hyperbole.

Also, fighting has been going on in the Middle East for over a thousand years. "The greatest empire in the world" of the 19th and early 20th century couldn't stop it, and America won't stop it either. It's futile.

If our support for Israel causes terrorists to attack Americans, then we have a choice to make, don't we. I choose to protect Americans. How about you?

[Dorian Gray]

What an outstanding comparison! I get it:

On one hand, supplying weapons of war which are then fired at people, killing innocents, among others.

On the other, a person choosing to buy unhealthy food then dying through being too stupid or lazy to avoid the health problems caused by it.

Let's compare weapons with weapons, then. Do you think gun companies or gun shops should be blamed when a criminal uses a gun? Innocent people can get killed by weapons no matter the level of technology, method of procurement or nature of the possessor.

And what other possible use is there for weapons of war? If you don't expect weapons of war to be used to kill people, how do you expect them to be used?

[Dorian Gray]

95% of my house was financed by the bank, does this mean the money was a gift to me and I can stop those payments now?

What a load of crap. You're comparing an individual buying a house with Israel buying weapons. Vois la difference.

[Dorian Gray]

This is less than 4% of Israel's defense budget.

Anyway, this is not the point of Dorian's OP. It seems to me he wants them to fight it out in a great big war or wars, which is the way the other countries on his list settled their current borders.

Now, if there's a different interpretation to it I'm all ears, or eyes in this case.As I said, if our Israel welfare program is causing terrorists to want to attack Americans, I choose to protect them. I don't think wars will stop just because the US is in the area - obviously. So why expose ourselves to death and terrorism if it ultimately doesn't matter?

[Azure]

Fine, they are going for less than cost.

But not for free.

Thank you.

[Azure]

And Jesus Christ was born...... where? Christianity.


Jews don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Therefore the Jews have nothing to do with Christianity, which is based around Jesus Christ.

So your point is moot.

[Azure]

As I said, if our Israel welfare program is causing terrorists to want to attack Americans, I choose to protect them. I don't think wars will stop just because the US is in the area - obviously. So why expose ourselves to death and terrorism if it ultimately doesn't matter?

Because the problem can escalate? Ignoring it didn't do much either, i.e. 9/11.

[a_unique_person]

But not for free.

Thank you.

:confused:

[Kopji]

...We should abandon Israel.

Aid is not a black and white issue. When an earthquake stuck Iran we supported them by sending aid. We support Israel in some ways and in some we do not.

All other things aside, many people in the US like Israel, and are willing to put up with terrorists to be supportive. If we don't stand up for our friends, that would really suck.

Why? Because we don't get anything from Israel. The only reason we protect Israel is because it is the home/origin of Christianity. Other than that religious reason, there is no economic, strategic, tactical or political reason why we should support Israel.

I disagree. From an economic standpoint, US abandoning Israel would have worldwide impact. IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, many other businesses rely on Israeli products or employ thousands there. Your retirement fund probably invests there, (well mine probably does anyway).

The Lebanon situation is the latest thing. Over 2 soldiers being kidnapped, Israel invaded Lebanon, displaced nearly a million people, and completely failed to dislodge Hezbollah. On top of that, Israel comes away with a shiner, because Hezbollah is rebuilding the infrastructure. Hezbollah comes out of this looking great! It only makes us look stupid for supporting Israel.

I agree: Hezbollah made a big mistake. Israel made a bigger mistake. The US doesn't think Israel made a mistake so that's a mistake on the US part. Lots of mistakes. I'm waiting for some humility but don't see much. Making mistakes is not stupid if you learn from them. 'So what did everyone learn?' would be a Powerpoint presentation I'd like to watch as a fly on the wall over at the CIA...

Strategically, we already have bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE and Iraq. We don't need Israel. Israel has lots of weapons and nuclear weapons it can use to defend itself. If it doesn't do what we tell it to, we should cut it off and diplomatically spank it.

I'm risking blanket generalizations here, but Israelis seem a lot like Californians - you can't tell them to do anything. Israel is the third largest economy in the region behind Saudi Arabia and Iran. We don't need any bases in Israel, that seems like a big plus that the other countries might aspire to someday. :rolleyes:

The benefits would be enormous. Half the reason so many terrorists hate America is its support of Israel. So it makes sense that someone - say, a president - that truly wants to fight the war on terror would take every step to reduce or eliminate it. If we're honest, we will admit that it's really a war on terror against the United States.

We're not honest, we have little secret prisons around the world to help inspire new terrorists. Terrorists liking me is not something I view as a high priority though. I see them as a symptom of an underlying problem. We need to get at the problem not just symptoms - simply abandoning Israel would not do that. Killing terrorists does not work fast enough and for every one we kill there are more. We see what the normal state of 'Islam without Israel' is in Iraq: Heck they fight a lot.

We need to engage Mideast countries in 'non oil economic ways', education, employment, etc. Interdependence. Israel is an example of all of the best things that could be in the region, (when they aren't distracted by military adventures). If for no other reason, I think that is reason enough for some hope.

Our policy till fairly recently has been to be a fair player on the various sides. US ability to act in the region might be the big loser from 'the little war that couldn't' in the long run. The French had to do our 'peace' job for us - ouch.

And if Iran gets nuclear weapons, we'll use the same strategy we used against the USSR - threat of mutually assured destruction, with the exception that it will be a fairly one-sided destruction should Iran decide to fire nukes on us.

I'm not sure we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes if it wants them. I happen to think that they do but there is no real evidence, or at least less evidence than we had for Iraq, which turned out to be all false. There is a sense that Iran needs to grow up and quit being such a backward crybaby country. A nuclear Iran that recognized & had normal diplomatic relations with Israel and influenced its neighbors to follow suit would not be such a horrible thing. Message to Iran: "grow up".

The alternative is something like convincing the US and Israeli public that killing millions of people is good in order to get what we want. Which is what? A world with a few less terrorists?


'Israel is our ally and we should defend it'? Well, is a country that frequently gets itself into trouble and does stupid things because we have its back truly an 'ally'? Or are we being used? We should act like the most powerful nation on earth and serve our interests. If Israel doesn't do what we want, we should cut them off.

We ARE acting like the most powerful country in the world, and it seems to have a downside. Everyone talks tough but the pacifists are more close to being right.

Am I being sarcastic or ironic, those of you who know me? Honestly, no, I am not. Am I suddenly anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic? No, I am talking about Israel the political entity, not Jews. All you 'he's anti-Zion' shouldn't forget that there are Christians and Muslims in Israel too.

My ultimate dream would be to convince or coerce all nations of any reasonable power - Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, the US - to stop meddling in the Middle East, stop creating countries like we have with Israel and Iraq at least, and let them form their own borders, countries and political structures - just like Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the US have. Any of us stepping in there and meddling around is like having the FBI referee a pickup basketball game.

What if they fight with each other so much nobody gets around to sending us our oil?

[The Atheist]

Let's compare weapons with weapons, then. Do you think gun companies or gun shops should be blamed when a criminal uses a gun? Innocent people can get killed by weapons no matter the level of technology, method of procurement or nature of the possessor.

And what other possible use is there for weapons of war? If you don't expect weapons of war to be used to kill people, how do you expect them to be used?Just so you know, that's irrelevant to the post I made, I was pointing out the stupidity of comparing weapons to fast-food, just as you pointed out a ridicluous comparison in your very next post!
You're comparing an individual buying a house with Israel buying weapons. Vois la difference.

[marksman]

Countries in that region have ganged up on Israel many times, and Israel has always prevailed. "Abandoning them to be destroyed by their enemies" is hyperbole.

Also, fighting has been going on in the Middle East for over a thousand years. "The greatest empire in the world" of the 19th and early 20th century couldn't stop it, and America won't stop it either. It's futile.

If our support for Israel causes terrorists to attack Americans, then we have a choice to make, don't we. I choose to protect Americans. How about you?

Dorian, you didn't answer my question. When you state that the US should withdraw its support for Israel, what support do you mean?

Do you mean we should give them any loans or merely not forgive any loans?
Does this mean we should back out of the treaty negotiated by Carter that brought an end of hostilities between Israel and Egypt?
Do you mean we shouldn't give Israel discounts on arms we sell them or that we should impose an arms embargo in Israel or something else?

There are many levels of support. I can't figure out what sort of "support" you reference. Should be stop treating Israel favorably vis-a-vis other nations in the world, or should we avoid dealing with Israel altogether.

I ask this because of your last question to me. If all you advocate is treatign Israel like other nations, that will not satisfy the terrorists. They do not seek some imagined level of parity. They seek total withdrawal of support. So a mere reduction of aid will not lessen terrorism -- only an elimination will.

That said, I reject your assumption that support for Israel is fuelign terrorism against the US. Terrorist enraged by Israel's presence attack Israel. Israel is a justification for terrorism against the West, not a cause.

[Azure]

:confused:

You sought to prove that Israel was recieving weapons from the US, for free.

They're not, and you admitted it.

Thank you. :)

[Mycroft]

You're comparing an individual buying a house with Israel buying weapons. Vois la difference.

Except he's not.

He's illustrating that the word "finance" normally means "loan money" and not "gift".

[a_unique_person]

You sought to prove that Israel was recieving weapons from the US, for free.

They're not, and you admitted it.

Thank you. :)

I said half of them effectively for free, they are less than half what Australia will be paying for them. Or, less than cost price each, either way, it's a huge discount, and the manufacturer will be make a loss on each plane.

[Mycroft]

I said half of them effectively for free, they are less than half what Australia will be paying for them. Or, less than cost price each, either way, it's a huge discount, and the manufacturer will be make a loss on each plane.

When Israel buys military jets they buy stripped-down versions as they like to incorporate their own weapons and avionics systems. Australia would buy the full package, which would account for the differences in price.

[webfusion]

"stripped-down" to the extreme : It is my understanding that the IAF receives F16's without wings!

There is a kibbutz factory in Israel that specializes in fabricating composite-material fighter-jet wings, and the IAF prefers these to the original aluminum.
(this kibbutz also does the wings for the Phantom F4 upgrade project)

[Azure]

Well someones theory just got shot to *****.

;)

[webfusion]

http://www.vogue-web.ch/f4/f4_46.html

Turkey's Air Force uses the upgraded aircraft (dubbed by them as F-4E 2020 "Terminators")
In August of 1995, Israel Aircraft Industries was awarded a $600 million contract to upgrade 54 Turkish Airforce (THK=Turk Hava Kuvvetleri) Phantoms.

These aircraft originally entered service in the 1960's and Israeli ingenuity is keeping them flying well into the 21st century for various air forces. (U.S. production ended in 1981).

The last Israeli F-4s were retired 12 May 2004.

[a_unique_person]

Well someones theory just got shot to *****.

;)

Somone actually made a rebuttal based on argument and evidence.

[steverino]

This perception that Israel is just a piece of gum on the bottom of America's shoe that has outworn its welcome is beyond ignorant. Israel has contributed much to the world outside the context of bullets. Much of Israel's innovation in heart surgeries has kept alive many parents of you Zion-haters. My girlfriend has MS and is doing well thanks to a wonderful drug developed in Israel. She does not know Natanya from Naharia, but she knows it is thanks to Israel that she can lead a normal life.
http://www.tevapharm.com/copaxone/

[a_unique_person]

This perception that Israel is just a piece of gum on the bottom of America's shoe that has outworn its welcome is beyond ignorant. Israel has contributed much to the world outside the context of bullets. Much of Israel's innovation in heart surgeries has kept alive many parents of you Zion-haters. My girlfriend has MS and is doing well thanks to a wonderful drug developed in Israel. She does not know Natanya from Naharia, but she knows it is thanks to Israel that she can lead a normal life.
http://www.tevapharm.com/copaxone/

Your logic is that the bad things Israel does don't matter because of the good things?

[zenith-nadir]

Ahhhhhh.....the old "stop aid to Israel" meme. Israel recieves about 3 billion a year in aid from the US. Since 1949 Israel has recieved a cumulative total of around $107.961 billion.

With that said the Iraq war costs $200 million each and every day.

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/) - 7:25 p.m. ET March 17, 2006 - MSNBC - Chief economics correspondent

Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

In three years the Iraq war has cost the US tax payers nearly four times more that aid to Israel has since 1949. So if the actual argument is to save the US taxpayer money then cut aid and support to Iraq. That'll save you nearly four times more money right now.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. And what do American taxpayers get from Egypt? They get an Egyptian government who tolerates hard-core anti-Semitism, a government who limits its cooperation in the war on terrorism and a government who absolutely fails to prevent gun-smuggling to Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. When was the last time Egypt helped the US do anything? Anyone?

Yet you never hear folks debate about "cutting aid to Egypt" - ($2.1 billion a year JREFers) - Israel is always the target for "saving the US taxpayers money".

But the real argument™ is never about really saving the US taxpayers money, it is about cutting and running from the Middle East so that "we" don't have to deal with that mess. People figure if we just cut aid to Israel then the "terrorists" would fall in love America cuz it isn't supporting Israel.

The benefits would be enormous. Half the reason so many terrorists hate America is its support of Israel. So it makes sense that someone - say, a president - that truly wants to fight the war on terror would take every step to reduce or eliminate it. If we're honest, we will admit that it's really a war on terror against the United States.

Was 9-11 about US aid to Israel? How about the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings? Were they about US aid to Israel? The 1993 WTC bombing? The USS Cole bombing? When Saddam invaded Kuwait was it about US aid to Israel? When the Taliban oppressed Afghanis and helped Al Qaeda was it because of US aid to Israel? No they were not.

Islamic terrorism is based upon a perverted interpretation of Islam. This perverted interpretation does not include jews - or christians for that matter - in the Middle East. The islamofacists must attack us infidels, and Americans are surely infidels who do not share the terrorist's beliefs. The islamofacists oppose Western culture - of which Israel belongs to - and they absolutely lothe democracy cuz that just means their women would no longer be property and may demand such things as an education or the same rights as men. Hell they might even want to drive a car in public. And the islamofascists have no interest in the elimination of discrimination against women in their own cultures.

If you cut aid to Israel Dorian then the terrorists win. They forced you/us to change the way you/us operate....the way you think. Is that what you want? To be coerced by terrorists? You wanna be told how high to jump by islamofascists on a jihad to spead islam across the globe? What's next on their "list of grievances" once Israel is cut off? The way you dress? How about the way you think or what you read?

The main cause of Islamic extremism and terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. aid to Israel, but the very governments that harbor and support the terrorists - see: Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon....

The easy answer is just to cut aid to Israel because it actually doesn't require any thought about who really is the main cause of Islamic extremism.

[marksman]

I really wish Dorian would answer my question

Dorian, you didn't answer my question. When you state that the US should withdraw its support for Israel, what support do you mean?

Do you mean we should give them any loans or merely not forgive any loans?
Does this mean we should back out of the treaty negotiated by Carter that brought an end of hostilities between Israel and Egypt?
Do you mean we shouldn't give Israel discounts on arms we sell them or that we should impose an arms embargo in Israel or something else?

[Darth Rotor]

And what do American taxpayers get from Egypt?
They buy a lack of a war between Egypt and Israel. It bought almost two Egyptian divisions in the Gulf War 1991 (of dubious fighting power, but a big political marker). It buys access to Egypt. It aligns Egypt with American defense contractors, rather than Russian/Soviet defense contractors. It buys image in the region of being "even handed." It buys a modest amount of good will.
US Dept of State Official Website Egypt Background Notes (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm)Egypt played a key role during the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. President Mubarak helped assemble the international coalition and deployed 35,000 Egyptian troops against Iraq to liberate Kuwait. The Egyptian contingent was the third-largest in the coalition forces, after the U.S. and U.K. In the aftermath of the Gulf war, Egypt signed the Damascus declaration with Syria and the Gulf states to strengthen Gulf security. Egypt continues to contribute regularly to UN peacekeeping missions, most recently in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. In August 2004, Egypt was actively engaged in seeking a solution to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, including the dispatch of military monitors. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Egypt, which has itself been the target of terrorist attacks, has been a key supporter of the U.S. war against terrorists and terrorist organizations such as Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda, and actively supported the Iraqi Governing Council, as well as the subsequent government of Prime Minister Allawi. In July 2005, terrorists attacked the Egyptian city of Sharm El Sheikh. In the same month, Egypt's envoy to Iraq was assassinated.
They get an Egyptian government who tolerates hard-core anti-Semitism,
You can't bribe true believers out of their beliefs. There are plenty of hardcore anti Semites in America, and you won't bribe them out of their beliefs either. Nor will any modern government likely quash all dissent effectively. Egypt's government is not as stable, nor as strong, as the American government. Your expectation that Egyptians can somehow do what more competent governments cannot, control their entire population, is dead on arrival. At least they are marginally more effective than the Lebanese "government" in that regard. :o
a government who limits its cooperation in the war on terrorism
But who does cooperate where it can. Egypts politics are complex. They have a stake in their status in the Arab League, and other Middle Eastern political alliances. Each leader remembers what happened to Anwar Sadat for his peacemaking initiative: gunned down in broad daylight.
and a government who absolutely fails to prevent gun-smuggling to Palestinian terror groups in Gaza.
Indeed, that's a problem. Smuggling is hard to stop no matter where you are. You can thank graft, corruption, and no doubt some Egyptians who are sympathetic to Palestinians regardless of the official position. See the US Mexico border for smuggling problems, with similar undercurrents of nefarious behavior. See US spies and moles who sold out to the Soviets.
When was the last time Egypt helped the US do anything? Anyone?
Well, the Gulf War 1991 was a glaring example. I'll offer that some of their assistance has to be very discrete, due to the virulent strains of Islamism within the society: the Muslim Brotherhood, anyone? We do joint military exercises most years, of varying complexity, in the interest of mutual security. Again, their position in the Islamic world informs their political constraints.
Yet you never hear folks debate about "cutting aid to Egypt" - ($2.1 billion a year JREFers) - Israel is always the target for "saving the US taxpayers money".
The population difference, and the per capita income disparity, might have something to do with that. ;) So might the incentive for them not to fall into the arms of the virulent Muslim influence of the Saudis or Iran without a counterbalancing American influence. Location, location, location: the Suez Canal.
But the real argument™ is never about really saving the US taxpayers money, it is about cutting and running from the Middle East so that "we" don't have to deal with that mess. People figure if we just cut aid to Israel then the "terrorists" would fall in love America cuz it isn't supporting Israel.
Strawman of the vilest sort. How do you get "cut and run from the Mid East" out of a non-policy of "Cut and Run in Iraq" (so named by Rovians) when the US absolutely cannot "cut and run from the Mid East" due to the strategic imperative of oil, the global economy's dependence on oil, and the USA's dependence on the global economy. Stop making stuff up.

Dorian Gray's "abandon Israel" OP suggestion is IMO unrealistic. Restructuring the relationship so Israel is accountable for paying back loans, and that they adhere to tech transfer protocols is NOT too much to ask for 3-7 billion in aid per year. The official aid is boosted by other loans and loan guarantees that get waived with some frequency. That Palestinian site is reasonably near the mark.

A more sober assessment. (http://www.adc.org/IB85066.pdf)
The Economist chimes in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)

Re-evaluating our security relationship with Israel is warranted. Requiring that Israel pay back loans, as most other nations in their per capita GNP do --see Australia -- would appease some of the taxpayer gripes. The tech transfer of American tech to China (recent early warning radar case) is a blatant violation of trust. Jonathan Pollard is a symbol of Israeli malfeasance who anti Israel pundits can hammer on. Why? The Israeli government requests for his release.

A good relationship based on mutual respect, mutual aims, mutual security goals? Certainly a good idea, and IMO in both country's interests. A special relationship? Not warranted. As a US taxpayer, I am not pleased with the careless oversight exercised by Congress on this matter.
The main cause of Islamic extremism and terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. aid to Israel, but the very governments that harbor and support the terrorists - see: Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon....
No major argument there, but you neglect to mention non-governmental associations who fund terrorism for their own aims, or who seek out wealthy donors among the rich elite of the Arab world to fund underground efforts in the Islamist cause. I find the non-governmental cabals to be a far more dangerous problem to solve, and a more pronounced threat, with Iran as a special case of blatant state terrorist support.

Comparing the $200 million per day in Iraq to Aid to Israel is Apples to Oranges, but you might want to be careful. There are no few who see each of those dollars as yet more money spent in Israeli security guarantees. :p The argument that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a greater threat to Israel than to the US is a valid one. The argument that the US attacked Iraq on Israel's behalf is considerably less valid.

It's not all about Jew. ;)

DR

[gumboot]

No major argument there, but you neglect to mention non-governmental associations who fund terrorism for their own aims, or who seek out wealthy donors among the rich elite of the Arab world to fund underground efforts in the Islamist cause.


It should be pointed out that throughout the 80's and 90's every Islamic Terrorist organisation under the sun had a well-established funding network established inside the USA. I believe the USA is still the largest source of income for Hamas.

-Andrew

[Mycroft]

Somone actually made a rebuttal based on argument and evidence.

Given how frequently this occurs, don't you think it would be wise to adopt the habit of looking deeper before jumping to the first anti-Israeli/anti-US thought that comes to your head?

[Darth Rotor]

It should be pointed out that throughout the 80's and 90's every Islamic Terrorist organisation under the sun had a well-established funding network established inside the USA. I believe the USA is still the largest source of income for Hamas.

-Andrew

"The USA?" Care to explain that in a bit more detail? It doesn't match USDOS descriptive. (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45323.pdf) See Page 8, under major category of HAMAS.

Receives some funding from Iran but primarily relies on donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activity take place in Western Europe and North America.

DR

[Mycroft]

Your logic is that the bad things Israel does don't matter because of the good things?


Again you conflate issues. The topic was aid to Israel, not bad things that Israel does.

[marksman]

Again you conflate issues. The topic was aid to Israel, not bad things that Israel does.

Exactly. We give aid to Egypt because of the good thing such aid brings us... less war in the region, a source of intelligence, a secular regime that opposes the radical Islamists, and ocassional logistical support, access to the Suez Canal (though less important than it used to be). We give aid regardless of the fact that it is not a democracy, tortures its own citizens, suppresses political and free speech rights, supports antisemitism and ocassionally withholds intelligence and support.

We do it not because the good outweighs the bad, but because, presently, a world in which Egypt receives such aid is better for the US than a world in which Egypt does not receive such aid.

[Mycroft]

A more sober assessment. (http://www.adc.org/IB85066.pdf)

I'm somewhat skeptical of figures that come from an organization called the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. One would think they would be about improving the image of Arab-Americans in the US (which afaik is pretty good to begin with) but looking at their home-page about half the articles are about the Israeli/Arab conflict (with an anti-Israeli slant). I'll print out and go over the document


The Economist chimes in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)


That article refutes itself. Thomas Stauffer essentially holds Israel responsible for virtually every dollar the US spends on foreign policy and then some. On Israel's tab he places all aid to Egypt, Jordan, the cost of the US strategic oil reserves, supposed lost revenue from exports to Arab nation and on and on. It's clear Stauffer's intent is to inflate this number as much as he can.


ETA: A refutation by a writer who had much the same impression as I had.

http://www.hfienberg.com/clips/israel.htm

[steverino]

I cannot supply a link to, or proof of, the following, just a feeling in my gut: Seems like the vociferous critics of Israel among you suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You throw Israel into the same pot as Iraq, Syria, and Iran, then say, "Hey...Wait a minute. Not sure about those other countries with their justified aggression, but Israel we can tinker with." Then somehow this "logic" leaps to, "Those other nations are just acting in their best interest just as I would. But Israel (It's those Jews!) is the pushy one. Let's pull the plug on it."

Also I'd like to point out the obvious, that Islamic terrorists hate the West regardless of our stance on Israel. We are all in the same boat, folks.

[Azure]

Somone actually made a rebuttal based on argument and evidence.

Some of us didn't believe the BS you posted in the first place. ;)

[Azure]

Your logic is that the bad things Israel does don't matter because of the good things?

Actually, I think his logic is that Israel contributes a hell of a lot more to society then most people think.

Not just the 'bullets.'

[Darth Rotor]

I'm somewhat skeptical of figures that come from an organization called the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
What are you talking about? Did you read the title page of that paper?

Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

Updated October 17, 2002
Clyde R. Mark
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

There are dozens Palestinia Irredenta web site with all manner of stuff. Sometimes, they link to neutral, third party analysis in attempts to support their varying claims. They also use information publicly available to support their position. The joy of living in an open society is that even people who you disagree with are allowed to get a look at what the government is doing with the dough, or at least some of it. The chip on your shoulder is showing.

This paper is, as I said, a more sober look at US aid to Israel, certainly moreso than some of the more rabid Palestinian Propaganda one can run across.

The Economist is a well respected journal, albeit, the articles there are not always free of controversey. You appear to be held hostage to you own sacred cows. I had no emotional investment in the Economist article, so I had no emotional reaction to it. I also didn't claim it was written on two stone tablets. ;)

Now, let's take a look at the editor's comments on the firestorm of pro-Israeli emails that arrived in response to the column:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1216/p25s02-wmgn.html

Specifically, David laid out for readers the details of a controversial report prepared by economist Thomas Stauffer - and commissioned by the US Army War College. In the report, Mr. Stauffer presented his tally of the total cost of such aid, some elements of which are not widely known.

Some letter writers commended David for alerting them to this alternative perspective. But many others condemned him - sometimes using similar phrasing, occasionally employing a rather threatening tone - for not adopting in his column the kind of balanced, point-counterpoint approach that is required in an objective news story.

Writing as a columnist, David was not obliged to take that approach.
Mearsheimer and Walt would have predicted the same, and offered you points. They would have covered. ;)

Feinberg's commentary correctly chastises Stauffer on the differences between "cause" and "correlation" regarding on Arab / US economic warfare, as well as his bogus complaint against Jewish charities (1. people who put their money where their mouths are, go them! 2. why does he presume that money would have been spent/used in the US?) he then wanders off into intellectual quicksand when he goes beyond the intangible benefits of Israel-US alliance. I agree that you can't afix a dollar for donuts measure for such a quantity.

As time progresses, the quantity isn't fixed, nor is its value.

President Clinton, for all his failures, recognized this in his clumsy attempts to move the Israel-Palestinian relationshp forward. His failure is a separate topic.

DR

[zenith-nadir]

They buy a lack of a war between Egypt and Israel.So US aid to Egypt buys peace.

It bought almost two Egyptian divisions in the Gulf War 1991 (of dubious fighting power, but a big political marker).So US aid to Egypt buys cooperation.

It buys access to Egypt. It aligns Egypt with American defense contractors, rather than Russian/Soviet defense contractors.So US aid to Egypt buys defense contracts.

It buys image in the region of being "even handed." It buys a modest amount of good will.So US aid to Egypt buys good will.

Does US aid to Israel have the same benefits? I wonder. ;)

You can't bribe true believers out of their beliefs. There are plenty of hardcore anti Semites in America, and you won't bribe them out of their beliefs either. Nor will any modern government likely quash all dissent effectively. Egypt's government is not as stable, nor as strong, as the American government. Your expectation that Egyptians can somehow do what more competent governments cannot, control their entire population, is dead on arrival. At least they are marginally more effective than the Lebanese "government" in that regard. :o

In an article in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Dr. 'Ali Gum'a expressed his support of the resistance in Lebanon and stated that the lies of the "Hebrew entity" expose "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers..."These lies have exposed the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers who were described by Filmange in his book The Treasure Hidden in the Talmudic Laws [sic], which tells how [the Jews] planned [to prepare] a matzo [unleavened Passover bread] using human blood.

August 18, 2006 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=egypt&ID=SP125506)Key words are emphasized by me. So I guess the Egyptian government is also somehow incapable of controlling their own newspapers too huh?

But who does cooperate where it can. Egypts politics are complex. They have a stake in their status in the Arab League, and other Middle Eastern political alliances. Each leader remembers what happened to Anwar Sadat for his peacemaking initiative: gunned down in broad daylight. Ya... by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, who opposed Sadat's negotiations with Israel. They murdered an Egyptian president simply because he sought peace with Egypt's neighbor.... eeeevil Israel..the US-aid bloodsucker! ;)

Indeed, that's a problem. Smuggling is hard to stop no matter where you are. You can thank graft, corruption, and no doubt some Egyptians who are sympathetic to Palestinians regardless of the official position. See the US Mexico border for smuggling problems, with similar undercurrents of nefarious behavior. See US spies and moles who sold out to the Soviets.The border with Gaza is exactly 2 miles long...so you are telling me that - like their government-run newspapers - Egypt is also incapable of stopping smuggling on a two mile stretch of border. Ahhhh...ok.... :rolleyes:

PEACE TREATY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT - March 26, 1979 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Egypt%20Peace%20Treaty)

Article III

Each Party undertakes to ensure that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory, or by any forces subject to its control or by any other forces stationed on its territory , against the population, citizens or property of the other Party.

September 19, 2005 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2374)

On September 1, 2005, following lengthy negotiations, Egypt and Israel signed the Agreed Arrangements Regarding the Deployment of a Designated Force of Border Guards along the Border in the Rafah Area (the Agreed Arrangements). This agreement was designed to enable Israel to evacuate the Philadelphia corridor, an eight-mile (thirteen-kilometer) military zone along the Gaza-Egypt border, through the deployment of Egyptian border patrol forces to the Egyptian side of the border in order to prevent smuggling into Gaza. In eighty-three clauses, the agreement describes the mission, weaponry, infrastructure, and obligations of the parties.

Egypt knows exactly which arms are being smuggled, and could halt the smuggling into Gaza.

Strawman of the vilest sort. How do you get "cut and run from the Mid East" out of a non-policy of "Cut and Run in Iraq" (so named by Rovians) when the US absolutely cannot "cut and run from the Mid East" due to the strategic imperative of oil, the global economy's dependence on oil, and the USA's dependence on the global economy. Stop making stuff up.You misunderstand. I meant cut and run away from Israel so that the US would somehow not be a target for Islamic extremists. Nowhere in my post do I refer to or mention "the global economy's dependence on oil."

The Economist chimes in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)One thing I find curious about citing this article. It opens with:

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
Here is some new info for you:
December 12, 2003 (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=133&x_article=596)

WSJ Columnist Overstates U.S. Aid to Israel by Almost $1 Trillion

In an Oct. 8 column entitled “Getting to Know Our New Buddy: OPEC,” Wall Street Journal opinion writer Holman Jenkins overstated U.S. aid to Israel by almost a trillion dollars.

[snip]

When presented this information, Mr. Jenkins responded by citing a Spring 2003 Middle East Policy article by an economist named Thomas Stauffer to back up his $1.7 trillion figure...

[snip]

But, as economist Howard Fienberg noted in the Washington Times (Dec. 22, 2002), Stauffer’s data “present[s] half the story,” because while “inflating the costs of American support for Israel, he ignored the discounts and many benefits.”

[snip]

In addition, Fienberg wrote that Stauffer included any loan or loan guarantees as costs, predicting–without evidence–that Israel would default on its loans and the U.S. would have to cover the principal and interest.

From your link:

The Economist chimes in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid.

Back to:

December 12, 2003 (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=133&x_article=596)

Among other deceptions, Stauffer also outrageously counts private contributions from American Jewish individuals and organizations–totaling as much as $60 billion in grants or bonds. He complains that those donations are a “net drain” on the U.S. economy.

From your link:

The Economist chimes in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

So let's say that a Thomas Stauffer opinion is not a good yardstick when it comes to getting the real picture of US aid to Israel. But hey, that's just my opinion.

No major argument there, but you neglect to mention non-governmental associations who fund terrorism for their own aims, or who seek out wealthy donors among the rich elite of the Arab world to fund underground efforts in the Islamist cause.Funny how those very same non-governmental associations and wealthy Gulf citizens were never really stopped from funding terror UNTIL AFTER 9-11 when the spotlight was put on them huh?

Comparing the $200 million per day in Iraq to Aid to Israel is Apples to Oranges, but you might want to be careful. There are no few who see each of those dollars as yet more money spent in Israeli security guarantees. :p The argument that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a greater threat to Israel than to the US is a valid one.Sure is, Saddam shot many Scuds at civilians living in Israel...simply because the US - an ally of Israel - punished him for invading Kuwait.

IMO various Republican and Democratic administrations over many decades have chosen time and time again to aid Israel.. and if aid to Israel is so wrong and so bad for the USA then I guess all of those people are obviously highly incompetent. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Some of us didn't believe the BS you posted in the first place. ;)

That Israel is paying less than Australia? That doesn't appear to have been debated at all.

[Azure]

That Israel is paying less than Australia? That doesn't appear to have been debated at all.

That Israel was essentially recieving the same thing as Australia...for free.

[webfusion]

The border with Gaza is exactly 2 miles long.[quote]

and

[quote]...This agreement was designed to enable Israel to evacuate the Philadelphia corridor, an eight-mile (thirteen-kilometer) military zone along the Gaza-Egypt border

Why the discrepancy?

[Dorian Gray]

Jews don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Therefore the Jews have nothing to do with Christianity, which is based around Jesus Christ.

So your point is moot. Regardless of whether the Jews believe Jesus was the Son of God, Christians believe he was, and Jesus was born in that land, thus it's the home of Christianity. My point is utterly supported and relevant.

Nice try, though.

[Dorian Gray]

Aid is not a black and white issue. When an earthquake stuck Iran we supported them by sending aid. We support Israel in some ways and in some we do not. Do you not see the difference between offering aid to a country after a disaster and giving billions of dollars in welfare to the richest and most powerful nation in the region?

All other things aside, many people in the US like Israel, and are willing to put up with terrorists to be supportive. If we don't stand up for our friends, that would really suck. If our friends cause us to be targeted by terrorists, they're not really our friends.

I disagree. From an economic standpoint, US abandoning Israel would have worldwide impact. IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, many other businesses rely on Israeli products or employ thousands there. Your retirement fund probably invests there, (well mine probably does anyway). You do recognize the difference between the US Government withdrawing support from Israel and private companies withdrawing from Israel, don't you? I have never advocated that private companies pull out.

I'm risking blanket generalizations here, but Israelis seem a lot like Californians - you can't tell them to do anything. Except that we can pull out of Israel.

We need to engage Mideast countries in 'non oil economic ways', education, employment, etc. Interdependence. Israel is an example of all of the best things that could be in the region, (when they aren't distracted by military adventures). If for no other reason, I think that is reason enough for some hope. Unfortunately, Israel is nearly always 'distracted by military adventures'.

The alternative is something like convincing the US and Israeli public that killing millions of people is good in order to get what we want. Which is what? A world with a few less terrorists? Sure. I can see how the threat of total destruction would not be as much of a deterrent as an admonishment to "grow up."


We ARE acting like the most powerful country in the world, and it seems to have a downside. Everyone talks tough but the pacifists are more close to being right. We're acting like we're the most powerful nation on earth like the Big Three in Detroit are acting like the most powerful automakers. We need to act like we're the most powerful nation on earth like Microsoft acts like it runs on 86% of the world's computers.


What if they fight with each other so much nobody gets around to sending us our oil?What if we develop alternative fuels to the extent that the nations of the Middle East can no longer afford to support terrorist organizations?

[Dorian Gray]

Just so you know, that's irrelevant to the post I made, I was pointing out the stupidity of comparing weapons to fast-food, just as you pointed out a ridicluous comparison in your very next post!
My comparison was illustrative of a point. Your comparison was for its own sake, i.e., it was pedantic.

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian, you didn't answer my question. When you state that the US should withdraw its support for Israel, what support do you mean?

Do you mean we should give them any loans or merely not forgive any loans?
Does this mean we should back out of the treaty negotiated by Carter that brought an end of hostilities between Israel and Egypt?
Do you mean we shouldn't give Israel discounts on arms we sell them or that we should impose an arms embargo in Israel or something else?

There are many levels of support. I can't figure out what sort of "support" you reference. Should be stop treating Israel favorably vis-a-vis other nations in the world, or should we avoid dealing with Israel altogether. We should get something for our investment. If we don't get what we want, we should stop investing. Let the punishment fit the crime.

I will say that welfare to Israel should end. They have a powerful economy. That means anything we just give to Israel, including "loans" that they never have to pay back, and so forth.

I ask this because of your last question to me. If all you advocate is treatign Israel like other nations, that will not satisfy the terrorists. They do not seek some imagined level of parity. They seek total withdrawal of support. So a mere reduction of aid will not lessen terrorism -- only an elimination will. Unless you can speak for all terrorists, you're on shaky ground. Any perception of a reduction of support for Israel will result in a reduction in hatred for the US. Please note that I am not naive enough to think that cutting off welfare to Israel will end terrorism against the US.

That said, I reject your assumption that support for Israel is fuelign terrorism against the US. Terrorist enraged by Israel's presence attack Israel. Israel is a justification for terrorism against the West, not a cause.As long as Israel is seen as a Western puppet, particularly an American puppet, terrorists will target America.

I reject your statement that Israel is a justification for terrorism against the West. There IS no justification for terrorism.

[Dorian Gray]

Except he's not.

He's illustrating that the word "finance" normally means "loan money" and not "gift".
Except he is. And his illustration must be hanging on someone else's refrigerator, because in the case of Israel, 'finance' indeed means 'gift'.

[Dorian Gray]

This perception that Israel is just a piece of gum on the bottom of America's shoe that has outworn its welcome is beyond ignorant. Israel has contributed much to the world outside the context of bullets. Much of Israel's innovation in heart surgeries has kept alive many parents of you Zion-haters. My girlfriend has MS and is doing well thanks to a wonderful drug developed in Israel. She does not know Natanya from Naharia, but she knows it is thanks to Israel that she can lead a normal life.
http://www.tevapharm.com/copaxone/ There it is - "Zion-haters." What an original and mindbending argument you have laid out before us. I'm glad you didn't call me a "poopiehead" - that's impossible to rebut.

It's not "thanks to Israel" - it's "thanks to an Israeli individual" or "Israeli company". That's hardly an excuse to condone actions taken by the Israeli government that endanger the lives of Americans and/or Israelis.

[Azure]

Regardless of whether the Jews believe Jesus was the Son of God, Christians believe he was, and Jesus was born in that land, thus it's the home of Christianity. My point is utterly supported and relevant.

Nice try, though.

Jesus was born where?

Evidence? Link?

[Dorian Gray]

Ahhhhhh.....the old "stop aid to Israel" meme. Israel recieves about 3 billion a year in aid from the US. Since 1949 Israel has recieved a cumulative total of around $107.961 billion.

With that said the Iraq war costs $200 million each and every day. Sources.

In three years the Iraq war has cost the US tax payers nearly four times more that aid to Israel has since 1949. So if the actual argument is to save the US taxpayer money then cut aid and support to Iraq. That'll save you nearly four times more money right now. Strawman.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. And what do American taxpayers get from Egypt? They get an Egyptian government who tolerates hard-core anti-Semitism, a government who limits its cooperation in the war on terrorism and a government who absolutely fails to prevent gun-smuggling to Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. When was the last time Egypt helped the US do anything? Anyone? When is the last time that Egypt was the home of terrorists that attacked America, or that anyone attacked Americans because of our support to Egypt?

Was 9-11 about US aid to Israel? How about the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings? Were they about US aid to Israel? The 1993 WTC bombing? The USS Cole bombing? When Saddam invaded Kuwait was it about US aid to Israel? When the Taliban oppressed Afghanis and helped Al Qaeda was it because of US aid to Israel? No they were not. Answers: Yes, Maybe, Maybe, Yes, Yes, Saddam invading Kuwait wasn't involved in any way with America or Israel whatsoever so it's moot, and Yes.

Islamic terrorism is based upon a perverted interpretation of Islam. This perverted interpretation does not include jews - or christians for that matter - in the Middle East. Ah, the old "I can read the minds of all terrorists" ploy, is it? "Islamofascists" attack each other. There goes most of your theory.

If you cut aid to Israel Dorian then the terrorists win. They forced you/us to change the way you/us operate....the way you think. Is that what you want? To be coerced by terrorists? You wanna be told how high to jump by islamofascists on a jihad to spead islam across the globe? What's next on their "list of grievances" once Israel is cut off? The way you dress? How about the way you think or what you read? Slippery slope with a side of hyperbolic strawman? No thanks, I'm full.

The main cause of Islamic extremism and terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. aid to Israel, but the very governments that harbor and support the terrorists - see: Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon....

The easy answer is just to cut aid to Israel because it actually doesn't require any thought about who really is the main cause of Islamic extremism. Ah, so the correct answer is to keep invading countries and forcing them to become clones of Israel? (Burp)

[Dorian Gray]

By the way:
And what do American taxpayers get from Egypt? Egypt has the Suez Canal. That's a very strategic location. Worth a little investment.

[Dorian Gray]

Also I'd like to point out the obvious, that Islamic terrorists hate the West regardless of our stance on Israel. We are all in the same boat, folks. YOu don't know what they would do, since our stance has always been supportive.

[steverino]

There it is - "Zion-haters." What an original and mindbending argument you have laid out before us. I'm glad you didn't call me a "poopiehead" - that's impossible to rebut.

It's not "thanks to Israel" - it's "thanks to an Israeli individual" or "Israeli company". That's hardly an excuse to condone actions taken by the Israeli government that endanger the lives of Americans and/or Israelis.

I see your point. As a Midwesterner I always took pride in Dayton, Ohio as it produced the Wright Brothers...until I noticed that you were in Dayton. Then I understood your logic, which is that we have flight "thanks to two Dayton individuals," and we have one poopiehead thanks to you.

[Azure]

Hey Dorian, care to respond to my post?

[WildCat]

YOu don't know what they would do, since our stance has always been supportive.
We do know that wasn't OBL's problem, until he threw it in the mix recently.

You can't seem to understand that they simply hate the non-islamic west, and will use whatever flavor-of-the-day excuse they find handy.

You sound like a battered woman who thinks her husband wouldn't have beaten her that day if she would have just folded his clothes right...

Anyways, your OP made it sound like you'd be happy w/ a big honkin war in the ME for them to settle their borders once and for all, like they did in Europe and Asia last century. Are you still cool w/ that?

[steverino]

You sound like a battered woman who thinks her husband wouldn't have beaten her that day if she would have just folded his clothes right...


Good one WildCat!

[The Atheist]

You can't seem to understand that they simply hate the non-islamic west, and will use whatever flavor-of-the-day excuse they find handy.
That's a stupid and false generalisation - unless your "non-islamic west" only contains USA and UK?

France, Germany, Sweden and many other European countries seem to have escaped the sights of Islamist terrorists, as has New Zealand, which is a 100% "Western" country and secular/christian rather than Muslim. Thanks to a government which has refused to buy into the Iraq invasion by the coalition of the billing, New Zealand remains so well-regarded by Islamists that our troops in Afghanistan, who are actually rebuilding infrastructure rather than shooting Taleban, have not yet had to fire a shot, nor have any been killed or injured. We have had active involvement in East Timor, Bouganville and Solomon Islands, so it isn't a case of geographical isolation keeping us beneath the sight lines. The Bali bombings were aimed at Australians, not Kiwis, so it's quite likely that we are not seen as an enemy by radical Islam.

Wonder why. :idea:

[WildCat]

That's a stupid and false generalisation - unless your "non-islamic west" only contains USA and UK?
Dream on.

1969
Feb. 18 - Boeing 707 attacked at Zurich, Switzerland, killing the pilot and 3 passengers.
Aug. 29 - TWA 707 hijacked from Rome to Damascus, released with only wounded.
Nov. 27- El Al office in Athens, Greece attacked. Innocent bystanders killed.

1970
Feb. 21 - Swiss airliner blown up over Switzerland, killing all 47 people on board.

1972
Jan. 26 - Bomb explodes on a Yugoslav plane killing all but one passenger.

1973
Aug. 5 - Suicide squad attacks Athens airport, Greece, killing 3 civilians and injuring 55.

Dec. 17 - Bomb explodes at Pan Am office at Rome, Italy killing 32 and injuring 50+. The terrorists take 7 Italian policemen hostage and hijack an aircraft to Athens, Greece, killing one of them.

1974
Sept. 8 - Athens, Greece. TWA Flight 841 exploded from bomb in cargo hold, all 88 passengers killed, including 32-year-old Steven Lowe, an American citizen.

Nov. 23 - British DC-10 hijacked at Dubai, UAE, flown to Tunisia where a German passenger was killed.

Etc. etc. (http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_on_terror/tactics/2004102822.asp)
Forum rules prervent me from posting the whole thing, but you get the idea.

The US is the juiciest target, but hardly the only one.

[The Atheist]

The US is the juiciest target, but hardly the only one.
Did I say US was the only target? Did you spot France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden or Norway in there? Those being the countries I DID mention?

Dream on yourself, honey.

[steverino]

I understand friendly Holland is deporting Moslems and that neutral Switzerland is getting nervous about its Moslem population.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005162.php

Switzerland has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita in Europe; 80% are not being persecuted but come from countries where there is a civil war or systematic violence. This largely explains why there are 500,000 Muslims living in a nation where citizenship and permanent residency are extremely difficult to come by. But the Federal Council has the right to give the boot to foreigners in this category when they decide temporary protection is no longer necessary. This may be the safety valve that saves Switzerland from the Sharia that will surely engulf the rest of Eurabia.

[Azure]

New Zealand remains so well-regarded by Islamists that our troops in Afghanistan, who are actually rebuilding infrastructure rather than shooting Taleban, have not yet had to fire a shot, nor have any been killed or injured.

Maybe because they're part of the rebuilding effort, and not a combatant force.

Similar to the Army Corps of Engineers, perhaps?

[WildCat]

Did I say US was the only target? Did you spot France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden or Norway in there? Those being the countries I DID mention?

Dream on yourself, honey.
Perhaps you missed it sweet cheeks:

1976
June 27 - Air France airliner hijacked, forced to fly to Uganda. Some 258 passengers and crew are held hostage. 3 passengers killed. July 4th, Israeli commandos rescue the remaining hostages.

1977
Oct. 13 - Palestinian terrorists hijack a Lufthansa Flight 181 Boeing 737 and order it to fly around a number of Middle East destinations for four days, pilot is killed by the terrorists, 90 hostages rescued.

That's some mighty fine logic you have though - if it hasn't happened yet, it never will. Yep, that's air-tight!

[Mycroft]

Except he is. And his illustration must be hanging on someone else's refrigerator, because in the case of Israel, 'finance' indeed means 'gift'.

You have evidence for that assertion?

[Tailgater]

Did I say US was the only target? Did you spot France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden or Norway in there? Those being the countries I DID mention?

Dream on yourself, honey.

Sorry to tell you, but you might want to read the link. I saw quite a few France and Germany ones.

[WildCat]

More on France and Islamist Terrorists (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html).

Doesn't seem like they're very immune, does it?

[Tailgater]

Maybe because they're part of the rebuilding effort, and not a combatant force.

Similar to the Army Corps of Engineers, perhaps?

.....and other people are covering their a$$es?

[The Atheist]

1976June 27 - Air France airliner hijacked, forced to fly to Uganda. Some 258 passengers and crew are held hostage. 3 passengers killed. July 4th, Israeli commandos rescue the remaining hostages.
Plane full of Israelis isn't likely to be a FRENCH target, my love
1977
Oct. 13 - Palestinian terrorists hijack a Lufthansa Flight 181 Boeing 737 and order it to fly around a number of Middle East destinations for four days, pilot is killed by the terrorists, 90 hostages rescued.
Evidence that the hijackers were West-hating Islamists, please.
X X X

[The Atheist]

Maybe because they're part of the rebuilding effort, and not a combatant force.

Similar to the Army Corps of Engineers, perhaps?
Yep, exactly that. We don't do invasions of sovereign nations. Plenty of other countries with reconstruction troops have had to shoot back. Our teams are guarded by NZ SAS contingent of 100-odd.

[The Atheist]

.....and other people are covering their a$$es?See the above. Nobody else is covering them.

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, looks like Germany is on the radar:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aiHz7KGVAUSE

[The Atheist]

More on France and Islamist Terrorists (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html).

Doesn't seem like they're very immune, does it?
Doesn't seem like they're "WEST HATERS" either. Algerian Muslims hate France because of Algeria, not because they're Westerners.

[Azure]

Yep, exactly that. We don't do invasions of sovereign nations. Plenty of other countries with reconstruction troops have had to shoot back. Our teams are guarded by NZ SAS contingent of 100-odd.

So NZ DOES have troops there that provide combatant response?

Nobody invaded a sovereign nation. The government of Afghanistan asked the NATO led force to be there.

[Azure]

See the above. Nobody else is covering them.

You don't make much sense then. In fact, your point regarding the NZ force in Afghanistan is completely lost on me.

[The Atheist]

Uh-oh, looks like Germany is on the radar:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aiHz7KGVAUSE
Well, you must be psychic - the German police don't KNOW who's responsible, but you do! There's some place around which will give $1,000,000 to a real psychic, best you go see them, honey!

[Azure]

best you go see them, honey!

I really don't get why you call people honey.

And respond to my posts already!!! :D

[The Atheist]

You don't make much sense then. In fact, your point regarding the NZ force in Afghanistan is completely lost on me.
Ok, I'll explain in more detail. NZ was requested to provide engineering support for reconstruction. The NZ Army was tasked with the job and a force of engineers was sent to Afghanistan. As security could not be provided elsewhere, a force of SAS was sent as well.

For a variety of reasons - maybe they're all cricket fans - the Kiwis have had no problems with the locals and have only come under fire on the Kabul route. In their area, the Kiwis don't wear body armour, helmets or guns and the populace have responded to this open lack of hostility in kind.

[The Atheist]

I really don't get why you call people honey.

And respond to my posts already!!! :D

It's a girl isn't it? Reply above; give me a break, some of us have to earn a living!

[Azure]

Ok, I'll explain in more detail. NZ was requested to provide engineering support for reconstruction. The NZ Army was tasked with the job and a force of engineers was sent to Afghanistan. As security could not be provided elsewhere, a force of SAS was sent as well.

Alright. Fair enough.

For a variety of reasons - maybe they're all cricket fans - the Kiwis have had no problems with the locals and have only come under fire on the Kabul route. In their area, the Kiwis don't wear body armour, helmets or guns and the populace have responded to this open lack of hostility in kind.

The US has reconstruction teams in Iraq that don't come under fire either...

Just because NZ hasn't been attacked in Afghanistan, certainly doesn't mean they're not under attack from Islamic facism. Anyone who values freedom is under attack.

[Azure]

It's a girl isn't it? Reply above; give me a break, some of us have to earn a living!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/103524503b17c2aea8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1416)

All in good fun.

Either way, I'm not a girl, and you used that line on me. Unless you're saying YOU are a girl...but you should come out of the closet already, you're confusing me. :D

[WildCat]

Well, you must be psychic - the German police don't KNOW who's responsible, but you do! There's some place around which will give $1,000,000 to a real psychic, best you go see them, honey!
Give me the $1 million!

The suspect, identified only as Youssef Mohammed E, is accused of being at the heart of a plot to blow up two regional trains simultaneously on July 31.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2322068,00.html

Or is that a traditional German name?

[The Atheist]

Either way, I'm not a girl, and you used that line on me. Unless you're saying YOU are a girl...but you should come out of the closet already, you're confusing me. :D
Nah, I knew you were a guy, my sister in Alberta reckoned all the guys were gay!;)

[The Atheist]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2322068,00.html
Or is that a traditional German name?
Just to be pedantic, honey, since you keep coming back for more:
Evidence that he's a Muslim? Probable, but no certainty.
Evidence that the attack was planned because he "hates all non-islamic westerners"?
Evidence that the attack wasn't planned as Shi'ite revenge for the Sunni police trained in Germany?

Maybe you can get back to me after a guilty verdict, if one is given

[zenith-nadir]

Why the discrepancy?Because the smuggling tunnels are concentrated around Rafah - (map here (http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/D4862607-C25C-4203-9F91-5339161D78B7/0/rafahtunnelsmap.jpg) courtesy of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) - and the Egyptians know about the tunnels around Rafah. Yet they never seem to do anything about it.

Sources.So you need to be spoon fed information... try Google, it's a search engine.

Strawman. It is not a strawman that the Iraq war will cost more than aid to Israel since 1949. It is a fact.

When is the last time that Egypt was the home of terrorists that attacked America, or that anyone attacked Americans because of our support to Egypt?So what we should do is abandon countries that the terrorists tell us to so that they don't terrorize us. Ahhhhh...ok. Anyhow:

Egyptian Terrorists Tell of Their Slaughters in Iraq (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=630) - 3/31/2005

Interviewer: Your name?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Muhammad Samir Muhammad Ramadhan.

Interviewer: Where are you from?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Cairo, Egypt, sir

[snip]

Interviewer: What terrorist operations did you carry out?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Sir, we killed six National Guard personnel at the Or Hotel.

Interviewer: How did you kill them?

Muhammad Ramadhan: They brought them to us at the hotel, and we slaughtered them. Me and Mustafaa¦ and Zaka Al-Din.

Interviewer: You slaughtered them?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Yes, sir.

Interviewer: With a knife?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Yes, sir.

Interviewer: Did you know their names?

Muhammad Ramadhan: No, sir, I didn't.

Interviewer: Did you know which where they were from?

Muhammad Ramadhan: No, sir, only that they were from the National Guard.

Interviewer: Did they wear National Guard uniforms?

Muhammad Ramadhan: Yes, sir.


Ah, the old "I can read the minds of all terrorists" ploy, is it? "Islamofascists" attack each other. There goes most of your theory. I can see now that instead of providing rebuttals with documentation you are only prone to ad homs.

Slippery slope with a side of hyperbolic strawman? No thanks, I'm full. Yes... full of nothing concrete or factual just a bunch of ad homs.

Ah, so the correct answer is to keep invading countries and forcing them to become clones of Israel? (Burp)Nowhere in my posts - or this thread for that matter - do I use the words "invading" or "forcing" or "clones of Israel". Those are strawmen you created. So far you are not exactly winning me - or many others I bet - over with your debating skills.

[gumboot]

Ok, I'll explain in more detail. NZ was requested to provide engineering support for reconstruction. The NZ Army was tasked with the job and a force of engineers was sent to Afghanistan. As security could not be provided elsewhere, a force of SAS was sent as well.

For a variety of reasons - maybe they're all cricket fans - the Kiwis have had no problems with the locals and have only come under fire on the Kabul route. In their area, the Kiwis don't wear body armour, helmets or guns and the populace have responded to this open lack of hostility in kind.


What a load of BS. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

First, the SAS.

The New Zealand Special Air Service are widely regarded as the best combat trackers in the world, and specialise in hostile alpine environments.

NZSAS were the first non-American force on the ground in Afghanistan, and were heavily involved in tracking Al Qaeda and designating targets for airstrikes from day one.

The NZSAS is highly secretive - I am personally aware of about a dozen actions involving the NZSAS over the last 30 years or so (some involving fatalities) that the New Zealand Government has never officially even admitted occured.

Having said that, the rumour mill in the NZDF is we had two SAS injured in Afghanistan, none killed. That's because these guys are so good. We lost no SAS in Vietnam, and had a 500:1 kill ratio. I can attest to the speed of our boys from personal experience. :D

So yes we sent combat troops into Afghanistan. We were right smack in the guts of it.

The New Zealand government considered the invasion of Afghanistan appropriate under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

After things settled a bit, New Zealand's main commitment (the SAS still pops back now and then, no one really knows what they're doing... if a report says SASR (Australian SAS) you can be confident it includes NZSAS) became a Provincial Reconstruction Team, or PRT. This is located at Kiwi Base, Bamyan Province.

The force is primarily responsible for security, with regular "presence patrols". They also manage NZAID projects in the area - contracting the work out to local workers. We have excellent relations with the locals, mainly because it's a rather quiet spot in Afghanistan.

And yes, these troops are heavily armed, wear body armour, and carry firearms at all times. They do not wear helmets because they are light infantry, and light infantry do not wear helmets except in urban environments. Our engineers in Iraq wore helmets, while our troops involved in fierce skirmishes with Indonesia in East Timor did not. British troops in Afghanistan can also be seen without helmets, on combat patrols.

Case in point (http://www.army.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/0cc7b929-965e-4a71-bc5d-191e2c02e24f/0/ak06017477.jpg).

Just like in Iraq, the trouble tends to be isolated to specific areas. New Zealand troops (NZSAS excepted) are not located in those trouble spots.

There's 123 personnel at Bamyan. Additional personnel are scattered throughout the country, including a logistics unit at Bagram (C-130 Hercules aircraft) and staff officers at all coalition headquarters.

The New Zealand commitment to Afghanistan was always small, mainly because we were heavily committed to providing full combat troops to INTERFET in East Timor. Personally, I think now our commitment to East Timor has trickled down in number, we should greatly boost our commitment to Afghanistan, partly to provide vital experience to our forces, partly to try and win back important trust from the Australians and Americans - our actions in recent years in terms of Defense has severely damaged what I consider to be a vital relationship (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq).

In terms of Iraq, New Zealand briefly sent engineers as part of the UN mission. We did not send forces as part of the Coalition, because our Government made it perfectly clear we would only accept a UN approved mission in Iraq.

Most of the NZSAS actions in Afghanistan are still classified, but I have it on good authority from my father (NZDF Intelligence Advisory Officer) that the Americans were VERY pleased with us. NZSAS were awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for their work in Operation Anaconda.

End rant.

-Andrew

ETA. By the way the reason terrorists like New Zealand so much is because we had a bit of a scrap with Israel recently about two suspected Mossad agents caught using our passports. New Zealand passports are greatly valued by both intelligence communities and terrorists, and sell for enormous prices on the black market. When we severed communications with Israel Hizbollah even APPLAUDED our actions. Ugh.

[ZeeGerman]

Just to be pedantic, honey, since you keep coming back for more:
Evidence that he's a Muslim? Probable, but no certainty.
Evidence that the attack was planned because he "hates all non-islamic westerners"?
Evidence that the attack wasn't planned as Shi'ite revenge for the Sunni police trained in Germany?

Maybe you can get back to me after a guilty verdict, if one is given

Maybe I can help a bit.

The guy has indeed a islamic background. As far as it is known right now, the initial trigger to plant the bombs were the mohammed cartoons which have also bee published by german media.

Anyway, without having read the whole thread, I get the impression that two positions are defended here:

A: Islamic terrorism is directed at "the west" in general
B: Islamic terrorism is directed at states that support Israel or meddle too much in arabic affairs in the ME.

Personally, I think that both points are correct, in the sense that the form of terrorizm that we today label as islamic is indeed directed at the west and its values. It insofar differs from the terrorist acts like the ones in the seventies (e.g. Munich 1972) as those acts were IMO much more political. Munich was a palistinian-israel conflict driven thing taken elsewhere for publicity reasons. The kidnappers demanded the release of palestinian prisoner kept in Israel. The kidnappers of the Lufthansa plane in 1977 were palestinian/lebanese terrorists. They demanded , apart from a ransom of a couple millon dollars the release of 11 german terrorists (RAF = rote armee fraktion, a strictly political anarchistic/anti-capitalistic group without any religous background). This were the same demands posed by the RAF kidnappers of the president of the german employer association , Hans Martin Schleyer, who was killed after the Lufthansa hostages were freed by the GSG9 in Mogadishu.
The point is, the terrorist acts back then were always means to a politcal end like the release of prisoners opposed to acts like 9/11, London, Madrid and others, which have mainly the purpose to spread fear by indiscriminatly killing as many people as possible.

On the other hand, I'm convinced that the targets of the modern islamistic terrorizm are indeed chosen according to the "guilt" as perceived by the islamists. So, yes, Madrid and London were chosen instead of Berlin or Toronto because Spain and GB were in Iraq and Germany and Canada were not. After all, another purpose of this kind of terrorism is to divide the west (I'm afraid, this purpose is met quite well so far). I also expect an attack in Germany in the near future as well, since we decided to send troops to lebanon to guard the lebanese coastline in order to prevent hezbolla to rearm and we are absolutely taking the side of Israel here. It shouldn't stop us though, because it's the right thing to do.

Zee

[marksman]

We should get something for our investment. If we don't get what we want, we should stop investing. Let the punishment fit the crime.

I will say that welfare to Israel should end. They have a powerful economy. That means anything we just give to Israel, including "loans" that they never have to pay back, and so forth.
No you just want to end the practice of loan forgiveness? Is that it? What other "welfare" do you speak of?

Unless you can speak for all terrorists, you're on shaky ground.
I don't have to speak for terrorists to speak about them. I have analyzed their behavior, their writings and their speeches and on that basis I reject your notion that terrorists attack the West because of Israel. Terrorists who hate Israel will attack Israel (and do). They don't go after the secondary support farther away when they can hit the primary problem close to them.

To believe otherwise is to believe in behavior that no other terror group displays. The ETA attacks Spain. It hasn't attacked the Hague for allowing Spain to join the European Union. Kurdish terrorists in Turkey attack Turks. They don't attack Germany for the support they provide to Turkey. Chechnyans attack Russia. They don't attack nations that support Russia.

If someone is going to attack the US, it's because they hate what the US itself does, not because the US supports a nation that they hate.

Any perception of a reduction of support for Israel will result in a reduction in hatred for the US.
I see no evidence that this statement is true.

I reject your statement that Israel is a justification for terrorism against the West. There IS no justification for terrorism.By "justification" i mean that in contrast to the word "cause". I mean it in the sense that terrorists supply Israel as a reason for their terrorism after the fact.

[Darth Rotor]

So US aid to Egypt buys peace.

So US aid to Egypt buys cooperation.

So US aid to Egypt buys defense contracts.

So US aid to Egypt buys good will.

Does US aid to Israel have the same benefits? I wonder. ;)
Jimmy Carter seemed to think so, thus the Camp David Agreements he sponsored, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for.

By the way, where did I say aid to Israel is wrong? I didn't. What I object to is the loans being waived. The aid promised under Camp David was promised money to both Egypt and Israel. Until the Senate repudiates that treaty (not likely any time soon) that is aid guaranteed and lawfully distributed consistent with US foreign policy aims. IIRC, Jordan has been cut in on the deal in a similar fashion.
IMO various Republican and Democratic administrations over many decades have chosen time and time again to aid Israel.. and if aid to Israel is so wrong and so bad for the USA then I guess all of those people are obviously highly incompetent. ;)
Well, Bill Clinton's incompetence in foreign policy stands on its own pedastal of asshattery, likewise President Bush 43's. President Bush 41 was a bit better at it, and I think President Reagan, for all his curious habits, was at least modestly competent in forming and implementing foreign policy over the course of 8 years.

DR

PS/ETA:

How familiar are you with sumggling across the Israel-Jordanian border during the Arab League trade embargo with Israel that began, roughly, in 1948 and was stepped post 1973?

1. No matter how small the border, smugglers are remarkably resourceful people who make things happen.

2. Smuggling in the Middle East is an art form. ( I learned a great deal more about this while I was in the Mid East recently, as the problem at the time had to do with the smuggling routes and methods from Syria into Iraq :( as well as from Saudi into Iraq.

3. The Egyptian government's "lack of control" of its newspaper looks to me like an effort on their part to promote free speech. I'd like to point out to you that a lot of folks in Egypt have hardly forgotten the humiliation of their country at the hands of Israel in 1967 and 1973. Likewise, here in America, quite a few southerners still hold resentment about The War of Northern Aggression.

4. Free speech is sometimes slanted and venomous, so be it. Beats censorship.

[steverino]

Jimmy Carter seemed to think so, thus the Camp David Agreements he sponsored, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for.

By the way, where did I say aid to Israel is wrong? I didn't. What I object to is the loans being waived. The aid promised under Camp David was promised money to both Egypt and Israel. Until the Senate repudiates that treaty (not likely any time soon) that is aid guaranteed and lawfully distributed consistent with US foreign policy aims. IIRC, Jordan has been cut in on the deal in a similar fashion.

Well, Bill Clinton's incompetence in foreign policy stands on its own pedastal of asshattery, likewise President Bush 43's.

DR- Thanks for teaching me a new word today. I love it!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshats

[Azure]

Nah, I knew you were a guy, my sister in Alberta reckoned all the guys were gay!;)

lol...

[The Atheist]

What a load of BS. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense..
So, first you call it nonsense and BS, then go and prove that what I said is right. Genius.

[The Atheist]

lol...
See, I'm psychic, I knew you'd take that as intended.:)

[The Atheist]

Personally, I think now our commitment to East Timor has trickled down in number, we should greatly boost our commitment to Afghanistan, partly to provide vital experience to our forces, partly to try and win back important trust from the Australians and Americans - our actions in recent years in terms of Defense has severely damaged what I consider to be a vital relationship (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq).Mate, you even spell defence like a yank - why don't you just move over there? - we need guys like you in NZ like a fish needs a coconut. Fortunately, you're in such a small minority that you have no chance of realising that dream!

Gone by lunchtime, yeah, right.

[steverino]

Mate, you even spell defence like a yank - why don't you just move over there? - we need guys like you in NZ like a fish needs a coconut. Fortunately, you're in such a small minority that you have no chance of realising that dream!

Gone by lunchtime, yeah, right.


I think you protest too much, (3 pissed-off posts in a row) and that Gumboat struck a nerve with you with his brilliant post. Since you seem comfortable with personal attacks, may I suggest that if you really are an athiest, and believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, that maybe you need to simply take some opium and MELLOW OUT, dude.:eek:
P.S. When you say "We need guys like you..." who put you in charge of determining what kind of guys your country needs?

[The Atheist]

I think you protest too much, (3 pissed-off posts in a row) and that Gumboat struck a nerve with you with his brilliant post. Since you seem comfortable with personal attacks, may I suggest that if you really are an athiest, and believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, that maybe you need to simply take some opium and MELLOW OUT, dude.:eek:
P.S. When you say "We need guys like you..." who put you in charge of determining what kind of guys your country needs?

3 in a row? The first was pointing out that he says I talk BS, then goes to confirm what I said was reasonably correct.

The second wasn't even close, it's confirming that I made a joke and Azure got it. Friendly stuff.

The third, not pissed off at all, merely pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Kiwis don't support USA, the "war" on Iraq, or NZ increasing its military. Gumboot[sic] is spouting a line which finds little support here - I will edit to give links to surveys asap.

[The Atheist]

I'm finding it very hard to get up to date opinion poll data, mainly because it isn't something which needs to be re-stated by Kiwis, our latent pacifism is enshrined in law, so I will post some other detail. We have a law, enacted in 1987, which was originally designed to prevent visits by nuclear-powered or -armed ships visiting this country. The immediate result of that was a cold shoulder from USA and the demise of the Australia-New Zealand-USA defence treaty known as ANZUS. A vocal minority, no doubt including Gumboot and his daddy, were very pissed off about it and have lobbied the government and opposition parties ever since.

The legislation was originally passed by a Labour government in the face of vehement opposition by the National Party which had governed for the prior 9 years. Despite this, when National was re-elected in 1990, they held power for 9 years also, but opposition to a change in the law was so strong that, despite many of their members and politicians supporting a return to ANZUS, National did not pursue it. There is no doubt that the NZ economy has been harmed by its attitude to USA and its vessels of war, but as of the 1999 election over 75% of voters voted for one or other of the two main parties, both of which supported the ban.

During the last election campaign (2005), the National Party leader, Don Brash was made to eat his own words, where he had been overheard telling visiting US officials that, if elected, National would have the anti-nuke legislation, "gone by lunchtime". Brash renounced that statement, yet his party and supporters campaigned tirelessly to try and find support for NZ returning to ANZUS and affiliation with USA. It didn't happen and the government was re-elected, in spite of the Prime Minister being about as popular here as Blair is UK.

I suggest that if a change were made to bring NZ any closer to USA in defence policy, the protests would dwarf anything ever seen in this country. While there are people like Gumboot who want us to spend more on the military, they are in a small minority, and the majority of Kiwis are vehement supporters of our non-aligned stance. We are rightly proud of our record in keeping the peace in situations when needed around our corner of the world, while maintaining a stance that the UN is the leader of the free world, not USA.

And yes, I do get more than a little miffed when I see Kiwis attacking our defence policy. The policy is part of who we are, is supported by the majority in true democratic fashion and people disagreeing with it are welcome to migrate to somewhere with a different view.

New Zealand disbanded its combat-capable air force in 2004 and we now have no combat aeroplanes. No doubt this decision was implemented to the utter chagrin of Gumboot and his buddies, but as the move was made before the general election, it's fair to say people weren't overly concerned about it as the government responsible for the decision won the election (despite some other, extraordinarily unpopular policies). We probably spend the lowest amount of per capita GDP on defence than any other country on the planet and our armed forces are very poorly equipped in both human and materiel terms. I'm quite sure that with his inside connection, Gumboot can confirm all that - after all, he's already stated we should be doing more. It's just that a clear majority of voters feel differently, and I am definitely one of them.

My attitude towards Gumboot is also partly because of his choice of name. "Gumboot" (a Wellington rubber boot) has become a Kiwi colloquialism over the years and also the image and term are quite iconic for Kiwis - being closely aligned to NZ's agricultural/rural backbone and history. Gumboot himself is unlikely to come from that type of background as few farmers work full time in the NZDF, where his dad does, or live in Auckland. I feel that this type of person, spewing right-wing rhetoric and using a Kiwi farming icon as his name is an insult.

So, who am I to tell him to go away? A member of the majority of Kiwis - those who have the opposite opinion to him.

Also, if I got my points wrong about where the SAS is and what they are doing, it's because, as Gumboot himself pointed out, they are highly secretive and no publicity is given about them, so I can only comment on what the newspapers and other media reports.

One last comment in that vein - Gumboot has told us that his father is in Intelligence in the NZDF and from the comments, I suspect that he may have broken confidence by passing information not in the public domain to his son. I have forwarded a copy of Gumboot's post to the Associate Minister of Defence for New Zealand, Phil Goff to investigate whether a breach has occurred.

Cheers

[Darth Rotor]

We have a law, enacted in 1987, which was originally designed to prevent visits by nuclear-powered or -armed ships visiting this country. The immediate result of that was a cold shoulder from USA and the demise of the Australia-New Zealand-USA defence treaty known as ANZUS. A vocal minority, no doubt including Gumboot and his daddy, were very pissed off about it and have lobbied the government and opposition parties ever since.
I was in the US Navy at the time. The long term effect was modest. We still participated in some joint exercises with Kiwis. All your folks seems to have lost out on was some money from port visits to your harbors, which then went to Australia. In return, you got to stand up for your sovereignty, and hell, it's NZ's territorial waters, it is NZ's call. *shrugs*
There is no doubt that the NZ economy has been harmed by its attitude to USA and its vessels of war, but as of the 1999 election over 75% of voters voted for one or other of the two main parties, both of which supported the ban.
During that period, 1987-1999, a US air unit remained stationed at Christchurch, in support of the Antarctic mission. I think it closed down a few years ago.
During the last election campaign (2005), the National Party leader, Don Brash was made to eat his own words, where he had been overheard telling visiting US officials that, if elected, National would have the anti-nuke legislation, "gone by lunchtime".
The bigger joke on him was that President Bush 41 ordered all tactical nukes off of US Surface combatants and ships. From 1992 or 93 on, the issue was a moot point. Within about a year, no USN surface combatant had nuclear weapons on board. At the sailor level, this relieved ships of an immense administrative and safety burden, let me tell you. It was greeted with a sigh of relief in most quarters.
In September 1991, when the Soviet empire was falling apart, the first President Bush announced that all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed with land forces and surface fleets worldwide would be removed from overseas storage sites and surface ships, retired from the stockpile, and ultimately destroyed, and he challenged the Soviet Union to do the same.
You could say the joke is still on the Kiwis for that, but again, your waters, your rules. Cool by me. :) Since aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, and all of our submarines, I imagine the propulsion issue might still be of concern. I don't recall the exact wording of the 1987 declaration.
Brash renounced that statement, yet his party and supporters campaigned tirelessly to try and find support for NZ returning to ANZUS and affiliation with USA. It didn't happen and the government was re-elected, in spite of the Prime Minister being about as popular here as Blair is UK.
Bully for him, or was that her?
I suggest that if a change were made to bring NZ any closer to USA in defence policy, the protests would dwarf anything ever seen in this country.
At this point in time, I'd guess the same, and I live over here on the other side of the pond. Pre March 2003, not so sure.
While there are people like Gumboot who want us to spend more on the military, they are in a small minority, and the majority of Kiwis are vehement supporters of our non-aligned stance. We are rightly proud of our record in keeping the peace in situations when needed around our corner of the world, while maintaining a stance that the UN is the leader of the free world, not USA.
In that you are wrong. The UN leads nothing without the powers that be agreeing. Its power is constrained by the the donations of resources of its various members. US is one of the powers that be. US is still a leader in a whole slew of affaris, whether or not you like the direction US is headed.
And yes, I do get more than a little miffed when I see Kiwis attacking our defence policy. The policy is part of who we are, is supported by the majority in true democratic fashion and people disagreeing with it are welcome to migrate to somewhere with a different view.
Be yourself. Be Kiwi. It's all to the good.
New Zealand disbanded its combat-capable air force in 2004 and we now have no combat aeroplanes. No doubt this decision was implemented to the utter chagrin of Gumboot and his buddies, but as the move was made before the general election, it's fair to say people weren't overly concerned about it as the government responsible for the decision won the election (despite some other, extraordinarily unpopular policies). We probably spend the lowest amount of per capita GDP on defence than any other country on the planet and our armed forces are very poorly equipped in both human and materiel terms. I'm quite sure that with his inside connection, Gumboot can confirm all that - after all, he's already stated we should be doing more. It's just that a clear majority of voters feel differently, and I am definitely one of them.
You are now as capable as Iraq: no Air Force. I wonder if in ten years time your government will still be happy with that situation. Your geo strategic situation is anomalous: you are pretty much off of the beaten track of nearly everywhere else. Lucky you. :)
My attitude towards Gumboot is also partly because of his choice of name. "Gumboot" (a Wellington rubber boot) has become a Kiwi colloquialism over the years and also the image and term are quite iconic for Kiwis - being closely aligned to NZ's agricultural/rural backbone and history. Gumboot himself is unlikely to come from that type of background as few farmers work full time in the NZDF, where his dad does, or live in Auckland. I feel that this type of person, spewing right-wing rhetoric and using a Kiwi farming icon as his name is an insult.
This is too funny. Kiwi wars! (Soon to be a video game on XBOX or the Nintendo Ki-Wii. :D )
So, who am I to tell him to go away? A member of the majority of Kiwis - those who have the opposite opinion to him. Also, if I got my points wrong about where the SAS is and what they are doing, it's because, as Gumboot himself pointed out, they are highly secretive and no publicity is given about them, so I can only comment on what the newspapers and other media reports.
A very modest amount of online research will present references to NZ spec ops guys in Afghanistan in open source material. A modest example (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/nz-m27.shtml). I won't comment on the operational dealings I had with them, since I don't know what is or isn't still classified since I got back from theater. Two years gone. Their rep was solid, and their procedures and professionalism first rate. I can say that with complete candor and sincere respect.
One last comment in that vein - Gumboot has told us that his father is in Intelligence in the NZDF and from the comments, I suspect that he may have broken confidence by passing information not in the public domain to his son. I have forwarded a copy of Gumboot's post to the Associate Minister of Defence for New Zealand, Phil Goff to investigate whether a breach has occurred.
What are the odds that the MoD, Mr Goff, gives a hoot about an internet forum dicsussion? What are the odds that what he posted poses a hazard to operational forces, or current operations? I'll bet the under, but I am curious at what his response will be.

Will you keep us appraised?

DR

[Almo]

Yes, we should withdraw all US forces from Israel immediately. Oh wait, there aren't any there. So how do we withdraw from a country we are not in?

:confused:

[Almo]

In what way did the US encourage Israel to go to war against Lebanon?

I'd say they didn't encourage it. But once it started, the US didn't suggest they stop.

[The Atheist]

I was in the US Navy at the time. The long term effect was modest. We still participated in some joint exercises with Kiwis. All your folks seems to have lost out on was some money from port visits to your harbors, which then went to Australia. In return, you got to stand up for your sovereignty, and hell, it's NZ's territorial waters, it is NZ's call. *shrugs*
I meant the economic effects in particular. It was plainly advanced as recently as last year, when US/Aust free trade agreement was mooted, that NZ is still well down USA's list of friends.

In the meantime, thanks to NZ's recognition of China, we are about to be the first western country to have FTA with China.
The bigger joke on him was that President Bush 41 ordered all tactical nukes off of US Surface combatants and ships. From 1992 or 93 on, the issue was a moot point. Within about a year, no USN surface combatant had nuclear weapons on board. At the sailor level, this relieved ships of an immense administrative and safety burden, let me tell you. It was greeted with a sigh of relief in most quarters.

You could say the joke is still on the Kiwis for that, but again, your waters, your rules. Cool by me. :) Since aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, and all of our submarines, I imagine the propulsion issue might still be of concern. I don't recall the exact wording of the 1987 declaration.
No, that's absolutely correct. Kiwis are well aware of the fact that ships which could come here would be nuke-free, but we just don't want any US ships here. (we being the majority of Kiwis)
Bully for him, or was that her?HER, you Philistine!
In that you are wrong. The UN leads nothing without the powers that be agreeing. Its power is constrained by the the donations of resources of its various members. US is one of the powers that be. US is still a leader in a whole slew of affaris, whether or not you like the direction US is headed.
Absolutely correct again, but again, that's our attitude - without UN leadership and resolutions in place,we do nothing.
You are now as capable as Iraq: no Air Force. I wonder if in ten years time your government will still be happy with that situation. Your geo strategic situation is anomalous: you are pretty much off of the beaten track of nearly everywhere else. Lucky you. :)
Quite agree - most people on the planet haven't heard of us, let alone where we are!
What are the odds that the MoD, Mr Goff, gives a hoot about an internet forum dicsussion? What are the odds that what he posted poses a hazard to operational forces, or current operations? I'll bet the under, but I am curious at what his response will be.

Will you keep us appraised?
I don't know whether you need appraising but I will certainly keep you apprised.:) I have already had a receipt response to the e mail and I will post the outcome. I could be completely wrong, but it seemed that gummy knew just a little more than is publicly available, therefore I felt it deserved looking into. As you can imagine, as a pacifist, I take very little notice of what the armed forces do. There's no question of a hazard arising from the comments, but I'm assured that SAS/Intelligence matters are closely-guarded secrets and breaking confidence is breaking confidence, regard;ess of whether it creates a security risk.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know whether you need appraising but I will certainly keep you apprised.:)
Whoops. What I am worth depends on what you want out of me. :D

As to the her, I knew you had a lady, but wasn't sure how long she'd been in the seat relative to the chain of events you were tying together.

DR

[Azure]

I'd say they didn't encourage it. But once it started, the US didn't suggest they stop.

Why, should the US suggest to countries not to protect its own citizens?

[The Atheist]

Whoops. What I am worth depends on what you want out of me. :D Yeah, look, I'm about worried about your value given that helicopter note in your sig - have you seen this story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=123&objectid=10361620)?

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, look, I'm about worried about your value given that helicopter note in your sig - have you seen this story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=123&objectid=10361620)?
That gent is lucky to be alive. Such an impact tends to split a skull like a canteloupe.

DR

[Giz]

And yes, I do get more than a little miffed when I see Kiwis attacking our defence policy. The policy is part of who we are, is supported by the majority in true democratic fashion and people disagreeing with it are welcome to migrate to somewhere with a different view.

... snip...

So, who am I to tell him to go away? A member of the majority of Kiwis - those who have the opposite opinion to him.



People who disagree with you should migrate? You don't approve of the democratic tradition of dissent, debate, opposition policies? There's some wierd blend of pacifist fascism going on there...

[gumboot]

So, first you call it nonsense and BS, then go and prove that what I said is right. Genius.


Um... no...

You said we sent Engineers to Afghanistan, not combat troops
You said our soldiers weren't armed
You said we sent the SAS for security
You said we had good relations with the locals because of our "non combat" or "non aggressive" role

All of the above are totally false.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Mate, you even spell defence like a yank - why don't you just move over there? - we need guys like you in NZ like a fish needs a coconut. Fortunately, you're in such a small minority that you have no chance of realising that dream!

Gone by lunchtime, yeah, right.

...

Wow.

"Guys like me".

That's just great.

I just don't like the idea of us leaving out country defenseless. And that's even MORE important if we're going to so thoroughly annoy our former allies.

I'm not sure what "dream" you're talking about...

I really struggle to understand why sending more troops to Afghanistan would strike such a nerve with you. Our soldiers are not involved in the troubled spots. We haven't lost any troops, and our servicemen and women (remember, those people who have sworn an oath to die defending the citizens of our nation?) are gaining incredibly valuable experience in the field.

The operations are totally legal, approved by the United Nations, and fully supported by our government.

What is your problem? You're acting like I just suggested New Zealand should invade Iran or something...

-Andrew

[gumboot]

One last comment in that vein - Gumboot has told us that his father is in Intelligence in the NZDF and from the comments, I suspect that he may have broken confidence by passing information not in the public domain to his son. I have forwarded a copy of Gumboot's post to the Associate Minister of Defence for New Zealand, Phil Goff to investigate whether a breach has occurred.



Wow... you're a piece of work aren't you?

My father is not "in intelligence". He is an "intelligence advisor". There is a difference.

Yes a lot of what he deals with in his job has high level security clearance. Many of my questions about his work are answered with "I'm not able to discuss that".

He doesn't work for the SIS or GCSB, and he is not in the Royal New Zealand Intelligence Corps.

He's an education officer in the RNZAF.

I have not broken any form of security clearance, and neither has my father.

-Andrew

[The Atheist]

People who disagree with you should migrate? You don't approve of the democratic tradition of dissent, debate, opposition policies? There's some wierd blend of pacifist fascism going on there...Neo-pacifascist cleansing we call it! Hey, he's as welcome to stay as he is to go - we have a genuinely free country here. Comments like these:

"...our actions in recent years in terms of Defense has severely damaged what I consider to be a vital relationship (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq)."

"When we severed communications with Israel Hizbollah even APPLAUDED our actions. Ugh."

show his true colours; he is clearly quite disgusted with the government attitude and I was just letting him know that there are other parts of the world where he won't have to face that kind of stuff. I mentioned USA at the start as his spelling of "defence" is more appropriate to USA than NZ and his attitude fits as well. And at the moment, his opinion is a very small minority position in NZ.

As you say, we're a democracy and he's welcome to have his say, but since bashing one's head against a brick wall often causes brain damage, I felt it might be in his best interests to move away as things aren't going to change anytime soon.

Interesting follow-up to all this is that the one politician who may agree with gumboot is about to lose his job for bed-swapping and the guy set to replace him is a centrist who is extremely unlikely to attempt changes of the kind gumboot is after.

Hell, time will tell, the government might change and we'll end up with a load of neo-cons and It'll be me moving. C'est la vie!

[The Atheist]

Wow... you're a piece of work aren't you?

My father is not "in intelligence". He is an "intelligence advisor". There is a difference.

Yes a lot of what he deals with in his job has high level security clearance. Many of my questions about his work are answered with "I'm not able to discuss that".

He doesn't work for the SIS or GCSB, and he is not in the Royal New Zealand Intelligence Corps.

He's an education officer in the RNZAF.

I have not broken any form of security clearance, and neither has my father.

-Andrew
Goodo, then you have nothing to worry about!

Funny how your previous description of him was: "my father (NZDF Intelligence Advisory Officer)". Doesn't sound all that much like an education officer! Given the capitalisation of the words, it looked a lot like his title.

I've forwarded a copy of this to Phil as well, just so there's no problem with identifying the wrong guy. Unless, that is, you'd like to change his title - again.....

[gumboot]

I'm finding it very hard to get up to date opinion poll data, mainly because it isn't something which needs to be re-stated by Kiwis, our latent pacifism is enshrined in law, so I will post some other detail.


With all due respect, Atheist, I think you are overestimating how widespread your particular feelings are in our country, and seriously overestimating the extent of the difference in our opinions on such matters.

I'm a little disappointed, to be honest. One thing I truely despise about the United State is their polarised politics. On every issue it seems you have to be one extreme or the other. The rare moderates get trashed by both sides.

I contrast, I have always found New Zealanders to be rather more sensible. I can usually debate reasonably with even those who disagree strongly with me on a given issue. I have always like that pragmatic non-extremist nature of our fellow countrymen.

However in your post, which I feel was GROSS overreaction, you have shown that New Zealand has its blind extremist political opinions as well. Sad, but I guess I already knew that.

(By the way, according to all the neat little tests I've done my political stance is fairly moderate, but in the left libertarian sphere.

My name "gumboot" comes from the rare times in my past when I played online games. I chose the name "gumboot" because of its rather unthreatening harmless nature. I figured, since I was never overly good at such games, it was appropriate.

And, as you would probably realise, given my father is in the RNZAF, I have moved constantly while growing up. However most of my childhood was spent growing up in rural Marlborough. My school was divided into the "base kids" (those from RNZAF Woodbourne) and the "valley kids" (those from the farms primarily up the Waihopi and Wairau Valleys). So I am very familiar with rural farm life, thanks.

-Andrew

[The Atheist]

I really struggle to understand why sending more troops to Afghanistan would strike such a nerve with you. Our soldiers are not involved in the troubled spots. We haven't lost any troops, and our servicemen and women (remember, those people who have sworn an oath to die defending the citizens of our nation?) are gaining incredibly valuable experience in the field.I have just had a very good chuckle at that. I said pretty much exactly that in answer to a post by Azure and you said it was BS!

Let me quote you:
What a load of BS. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.
Make your mind up!

[gumboot]

Goodo, then you have nothing to worry about!

Funny how your previous description of him was: "my father (NZDF Intelligence Advisory Officer)". Doesn't sound all that much like an education officer! Given the capitalisation of the words, it looked a lot like his title.

I've forwarded a copy of this to Phil as well, just so there's no problem with identifying the wrong guy. Unless, that is, you'd like to change his title - again.....


I have no idea what his "title" is. "Education Officer" is his background in the RNZAF. I suppose his current job is probably vaguely "education" related because otherwise I'd assume he wouldn't be considered suitable for it.

The first "title" you refer to is nothing more than the extent of his description to me. It's NZDF rather than RNZAF because he works at a joint level (Army, RNZN, RNZAF).

On consideration, I agree the way I wrote it made it sound like a title. Misleading, I apologise. It also made it kinda sound like he was THE advisor to the NZDF, which isn't true at all. I gather he's part of a team of some description. I don't really know much, as you can imagine. :)

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Neo-pacifascist cleansing we call it! Hey, he's as welcome to stay as he is to go - we have a genuinely free country here. Comments like these:

"...our actions in recent years in terms of Defense has severely damaged what I consider to be a vital relationship (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq)."

"When we severed communications with Israel Hizbollah even APPLAUDED our actions. Ugh."


Okay, so you don't consider relationships with Australia and the United States to be important? Fair enough. I do. Both morally (we share basic common values and culture) and economically (they are our major trading partners and thus our major source of economic well-being) I consider them important. Any relationship needs to be a bit of give and take.

As for the second comment, Helen Clarke agrees with me. Her response to Hizbollah (actually on second thought it might have been Hamas, in any event it was a bunch of terrorists...) was equally as unimpressed as mine.

(The ugh is in response to a terrorist group applauding us, not to us cutting off communications to Israel)




show his true colours; he is clearly quite disgusted with the government attitude


I wouldn't say that. I have some issues with some of their policies. I also like some of their policies. Frankly I haven't had a clue who to vote for in the last few elections because there wasn't a single party that I really felt had broadly decent policies. (And I think the fact that the country is so closely divided on the major parties demonstrates how inaccurate your claims that anyone who thinks differently to you is a "tiny minority") I am also a little alarmed about some of the tactics they carry out unnoticed - including violating any number of New Zealand laws. These little things don't, of course, get noticed, because the morons in Wellington are more interested in if the PM painted a painting or told some police to speed (both of which are pointless and gutless smear campaigns, IMHO).



and I was just letting him know that there are other parts of the world where he won't have to face that kind of stuff. I mentioned USA at the start as his spelling of "defence" is more appropriate to USA than NZ and his attitude fits as well. And at the moment, his opinion is a very small minority position in NZ.

This is the most valid point you have ever raised. I thoroughly hate american spelling. Spelling something an American way is almost enough to have my stripped of my citizenship, if you ask me.

(Funnily enough, not long ago in another forum I got trashed by an American when my spelling revealed I was not a citizen of the USA).



Interesting follow-up to all this is that the one politician who may agree with gumboot is about to lose his job for bed-swapping and the guy set to replace him is a centrist who is extremely unlikely to attempt changes of the kind gumboot is after.

Agree with me on what? Sending more soldiers to Afghanistan for experience?



Hell, time will tell, the government might change and we'll end up with a load of neo-cons and It'll be me moving. C'est la vie!

Oh didn't you hear? The guy who does the Erotica expo said the current government is the local wing of the NWO... apparantly the neo-cons are already here. (Note, the Labour government have just ordered the buying of some new helicopters for the RNZAF - dead give away, I bet they paint them black!)

I know, I had a good chuckle out of his comments too.

-Andrew

[The Atheist]

I don't really know much

Well put.

[Tailgater]

I am an American and have never seen "defence". I thought you mispelled it. Maybe in Chicago they would say, "I jumped defence on the way to the Cubs game".:D

[Tailgater]

Well put.

Awww, come on A. I felt he sent you an olive branch on his last post and you flamed him.:(

[Azure]

Well put.

Maybe you should actually respond to the context of his posts, rather then throw one-liners out there that prove you know nothing about the subject at hand.

[The Atheist]

Awww, come on A. I felt he sent you an olive branch on his last post and you flamed him.:(
Maybe you should actually respond to the context of his posts, rather then throw one-liners out there that prove you know nothing about the subject at hand.Fair cop, the pair of you, it was uncalled for! I just couldn't resist living up to my other screen name of Arrogant_B_Stard.

I will actually take the post in the manner Tail (and I) think it was meant, and I think we can safely say the hatchet is buried, and not in anyone's back.

[The Atheist]

I am an American and have never seen "defence". I thought you mispelled it. Maybe in Chicago they would say, "I jumped defence on the way to the Cubs game".:D
At least it's nowhere near as bad as the Tongan supporters of their very first Olympic medallist a few years back. Tongans have great trouble pronouncing the letter D and it always comes out, verbally, as a "T" sound.

Upon arrival at the airport, the boxer-medallist was greeted by signs hailing him as: "Tonga's first Olympic Metallist"

[Mycroft]

I'd say they didn't encourage it. But once it started, the US didn't suggest they stop.

I agree. I would also state there is a large difference between the two.

[Tailgater]

At least it's nowhere near as bad as the Tongan supporters of their very first Olympic medallist a few years back. Tongans have great trouble pronouncing the letter D and it always comes out, verbally, as a "T" sound.

Upon arrival at the airport, the boxer-medallist was greeted by signs hailing him as: "Tonga's first Olympic Metallist"

That's funny. I lived in Chicago for about 10 years and found myself saying "duh" instead of "the" for awhile. Took a long time to shake it off.

BTW-Thanks to both of you for the insight on a little NZ politics. It's been very interesting aside from the heated parts. The polarized politics is what frustrates me as an American. I'm very much in the middle on most issues and believe that Rep/Dem extremists who want things 100% their way are ruining the country. Buring the hatchet and opening up a middle ground discussion is always a good thing.

[AmateurScientist]

Awww, come on A. I felt he sent you an olive branch on his last post and you flamed him.:(

Certainly. I would add that Andrew appears to have shown nothing but class and restraint in his dialogue with The Atheist. In contrast, The Atheist has mostly been hostile towards Andrew, has softened a little, and then reverted to insulting him again in the face of Andrew's being awfully polite and almost conciliatory.

Andrew comes out looking like a bright, cool headed gentleman, and The Atheist...well, not so much.

AS

[Azure]

Fair cop, the pair of you, it was uncalled for! I just couldn't resist living up to my other screen name of Arrogant_B_Stard.

I will actually take the post in the manner Tail (and I) think it was meant, and I think we can safely say the hatchet is buried, and not in anyone's back.

Intead of admitting that Andrew is right, you act like a prick.

To be blunt of course. I would be much nicer, but why?

Respond to his post in the manner he responds to you, and then I might be nice. I had a higher opinion of you then this.

[The Atheist]

Andrew comes out looking like a bright, cool headed gentleman, and The Atheist...well, not so much.
Respond to his post in the manner he responds to you, and then I might be nice. I had a higher opinion of you then this.

Hey, guys! I did say this, if you didn't notice:
Fair cop, the pair of you, it was uncalled for! I just couldn't resist living up to my other screen name of Arrogant_B_Stard.

I will actually take the post in the manner Tail (and I) think it was meant, and I think we can safely say the hatchet is buried, and not in anyone's back.
Maybe the idiom is unfamiliar, but burying the hatchet means we've shaken hands and it's all over. I was being unfair and admitted it.

As to the argument, I think, if you check back, it's reasonably settled - I was working on what is publicly available, and as gumboot/Andrew pointed out, the SAS is a secretive bunch and the detail of what they are doing is not public knowledge. He agreed with my notes that the engineering troops are in a settled situation, have had no casualties and are well regarded by locals.

Ok?
Edit - I also figure that "fair cop" might be unfamiliar to you, too. Another way of putting it would be: "Oops, caught out!" Life would be so much easier if you damned infidels learned English as she is spoke!

[steverino]

That's funny. I lived in Chicago for about 10 years and found myself saying "duh" instead of "the" for awhile. Took a long time to shake it off.

While Chicago gets picked on a lot for its mafia, political corruption, Al Capone, and the Cubs, it is an intellectual Mecca (if you'll parden the comparison.) Before picking on it, and America in general, for being sloppy with the language, please consider Mortimer Adler, who developed the Great Book series, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He was a longtime Chicago resident, and therefore an American, to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler

[gumboot]

He agreed with my notes that the engineering troops are in a settled situation, have had no casualties and are well regarded by locals.


:covereyes

First, yes the hatchet is buried...:cool:

But just to clarify (again).

Iraq = engineers briefly
Afghanistan = combat/security forces long term (currently 8th deployment)

The only engineers in Afghanistan are the few attached to the security force to do things like destroy weapons caches.

Most of the company-strength force are infantry.

-Andrew

[Tailgater]

While Chicago gets picked on a lot for its mafia, political corruption, Al Capone, and the Cubs, it is an intellectual Mecca (if you'll parden the comparison.) Before picking on it, and America in general, for being sloppy with the language, please consider Mortimer Adler, who developed the Great Book series, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He was a longtime Chicago resident, and therefore an American, to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler

I'm in no way picking on it. I'm midwest born and raised. Huge Cubbies, Bears, Bulls fan all my life. Every area has a funny difference in accent and that's the one Chicago is famous for. mostly thanks to SNL 80s-90s with Da Bears;)

[Darth Rotor]

I'm in no way picking on it. I'm midwest born and raised. Huge Cubbies, Bears, Bulls fan all my life. Every area has a funny difference in accent and that's the one Chicago is famous for. mostly thanks to SNL 80s-90s with Da Bears;)
So, are there any Bears fans in Israel, which is the original topic of this thread? It seems that NZ's PM, per gumboot and Athiest's remarks, has taken a step in the direction that Dorian suggested the US take: severing some official communications with Israel.

Curious parallel.

DR

[marksman]

Is Dorian suggesting cutting off official communications with Israel? Does he want us to withdraw our Ambassadors and our Consuls from Israel?

As far as I can tell, the only specific policy he has mentioned is ending the policy of loan forgiveness. Other than that, I've only seen vague references to ending "billions of dollars in welfare" to Israel, to "cut[ting] it off and diplomatically spank[ing] it", to "the US government withdrawing support from Israel", to "pull[ing] out of Israel" to "stop investing".

He has emphasized that he doesn't want to "pull troops out" of Israel, despite the fact that he stated in the OP that we don't need to have bases in Israel.

Other then ending the process of loan forgiveness, I have no idea to what "welfare" he refers, what it would mean for the US to "pull out" or what a "diplomatic spank[ing]" would entail.

I have to imagine he is advocating something more than ending loan forgiveness, because he seems to think that what he proposes will somehow placate the terrorists who are angered at our support for Israel. But I can't imagine he thinks ending the process of loan forgiveness alone is going to manage that.

[steverino]

So, are there any Bears fans in Israel, which is the original topic of this thread? It seems that NZ's PM, per gumboot and Athiest's remarks, has taken a step in the direction that Dorian suggested the US take: severing some official communications with Israel.

Curious parallel.

DR

This thread had an original topic?
;)

[The Atheist]

Ahem.

Yeah, sorry about that guys, I nearly let the thread get back onto the OP!

Great opportunity to swerve it off again to why we gave Israel a slap. Every fictional - and a couple of non-fictional - book I've ever read paints the Mossad/Shin Bet as the ultimate spy network.

Either the guys busted here let a rumour grow that they were in that game, or they are the dumbest, most bumbling dickheads ever.

[Azure]

Great opportunity to swerve it off again to why we gave Israel a slap. Every fictional - and a couple of non-fictional - book I've ever read paints the Mossad/Shin Bet as the ultimate spy network.


Is that bad?

[The Atheist]

But just to clarify (again).

Iraq = engineers briefly
Afghanistan = combat/security forces long term (currently 8th deployment)

The only engineers in Afghanistan are the few attached to the security force to do things like destroy weapons caches.

Most of the company-strength force are infantry.

-Andrew

Mate, my point, as always wasn't about which sort of grunt was over there, it was about how the Kiwis manage to go about the business of not getting killed in a very hostile environment. Yes, they're not at the sharpest end, but maybe it's not the sharpest end because the Kiwis are there?

Anyway, now everyone's on the right, left, right, left, foot and everyone's happy. :)

[Tailgater]

So, are there any Bears fans in Israel, which is the original topic of this thread? It seems that NZ's PM, per gumboot and Athiest's remarks, has taken a step in the direction that Dorian suggested the US take: severing some official communications with Israel.

Curious parallel.

DR

I bet there is and I'm sure I can work in a Bulls analogy somehow with this sentence if I think about it long enough.

Any of us stepping in there and meddling around is like having the FBI referee a pickup basketball game.

[The Atheist]

Is that bad?
Don't know whether or it's bad, but it sure as hell is BS if the example of the pair of alleged agents who got nabbed here is anything to go by. Laurel and Hardy wouldn't be far off the mark.

[Darth Rotor]

Either the guys busted here let a rumour grow that they were in that game, or they are the dumbest, most bumbling dickheads ever.
Like the two "bumbling dickheads" (Mossad) who tried to poison Nasrallah in Jordan a few years back?
Sorry, it wasn't Nasrallah, my error. (http://www.spectator.co.nz/state-of-it/arafat-sharon.htm)
On 24 September 1997 Mossad operatives attempted to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, a top political leader of the Palestinian group Hamas.

The assassins entered Jordan on fake Canadian passports, and injected Meshaal with a poison. Jordan was able to wring a numbar of concessions out of Israel in the aftermath of the fiasco, including the release of the founder of Hamas, Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, from an Israeli jail.

DR

[steverino]

No disrespect but this thread was started by the guy with the cartoon of spaghetti spilled over his gonads. He seems to have lost interest in his dopy position.:confused:

[steverino]

Trying to erase second post.

[Tony]

I agree Dorian. To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east. That region is not worth another American life or dollar.

[WildCat]

Mate, my point, as always wasn't about which sort of grunt was over there, it was about how the Kiwis manage to go about the business of not getting killed in a very hostile environment. Yes, they're not at the sharpest end, but maybe it's not the sharpest end because the Kiwis are there?

Anyway, now everyone's on the right, left, right, left, foot and everyone's happy. :)
Huh? Are you claiming that if, say, the Taliban have an ambush set up and they see it's NZ troops they call the whole thing off and wait for someone else?

[Darth Rotor]

Huh? Are you claiming that if, say, the Taliban have an ambush set up and they see it's NZ troops they call the whole thing off and wait for someone else?
Yeah, he want's them to shoot the POMs! Whoops, sorry, that would be an outrageous Aussie sentiment. :p

He'd want them to shoot the Israelis. There, that's better, even though the IDF has been rather scarce in Afghanistan.

Hey, you IDF Kosher lads, according to the Isreali press, we are all in this terror war together. Get thee to Khandahar, and quickly! :rolleyes:

DR

[Azure]

I agree Dorian. To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east. That region is not worth another American life or dollar.

Finally you come back.

Not that I missed your pathetic posts.... :D

J/K, BTW. :)

[Azure]

Don't know whether or it's bad, but it sure as hell is BS if the example of the pair of alleged agents who got nabbed here is anything to go by. Laurel and Hardy wouldn't be far off the mark.

So you judge the actions of Israel based on two agents?

Judge their ability, etc, etc?

[The Atheist]

So you judge the actions of Israel based on two agents?

Judge their ability, etc, etc?
Christ, mate, your comprehension skills must need brushing up, I was talking about Mossad/Shin Bet. It's an intelligence agency, NOT a country. They are Israeli, but they are not Israel.

[The Atheist]

Huh? Are you claiming that if, say, the Taliban have an ambush set up and they see it's NZ troops they call the whole thing off and wait for someone else?
"Huh?" Is right - you're another with comprehension issues. You see that squiggly thing above a dot in my post after the word "there"? (A lot like that symbol immediately before THIS sentence.) It's a QUESTION MARK. In English, we use those to signify a question as opposed to a statement. Another clue was that I used the word, "maybe".

Is it national mistaken assumption day?

[steverino]

I agree Dorian. To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east. That region is not worth another American life or dollar.

To hell with Texas. Let's build that fence on its northern border and save a few bucks.

[Azure]

Christ, mate, your comprehension skills must need brushing up, I was talking about Mossad/Shin Bet. It's an intelligence agency, NOT a country. They are Israeli, but they are not Israel.

Ah but you forget your original intention.

Mossad is a part of Israel, therefore you judge Israel based on the actions/abilities of Mossad.

[Tony]

To hell with Texas. Let's build that fence on its northern border and save a few bucks.

A telling reply. You're obviously more loyal to Israel than the USA.

[Tony]

Finally you come back.


Of course I come back. I may take a break once in a while, but I'm not going to stop visiting. The JREF forum is, in my opinion, one of the best discussion forums on the internet.

[The Atheist]

Ah but you forget your original intention.

Mossad is a part of Israel, therefore you judge Israel based on the actions/abilities of Mossad.Now you've gone from assumption to wild psychic predictions of what my intentions were!

Are you not feeling well today, mate? Go and read what I actually wrote, then come back and try again.

[steverino]

A telling reply. You're obviously more loyal to Israel than the USA.

YOU tell ME tough-guy. Am I a Jew to you first, or an American?

[Tony]

YOU tell ME tough-guy. Am I a Jew to you first, or an American?

"Tough-guy"? :dl: Put your dick away loser, this is an internet forum.

To answer your question, you're neither. You're a human first. Second, an American (I dunno, are you?). Third, a Jew? I don't know. It's strange that you'd expect me to magically divine your religion and national citizenship over the internet. Whatever the case may be, it’s apparent to which nation you’re more loyal.

[zenith-nadir]

I agree Dorian. To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east. That region is not worth another American life or dollar."To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east."...as he fills up the tank of his Escalade SUV! ;)


I say to hell with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the House of Saud, the Baath party in Syria, the insurgents in Iraq, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a whole host of other religious islamofacist zealots who have turned the middle east into a place where beheading has made a comeback from the 10th century and folks yearn to wear explosive vests.

If we got rid of them, people would not have to worry about the next suicide bomber, Danish cartoon, Bin Laden, Taliban or Ahmadinejad.

But hey, that's just my opinion.:D

[Darth Rotor]

I say to hell with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the House of Saud
I am with you so far, though I wonder that the House of Saud isn't a moderating influence on the Wahabbi's. If they go, who replaces them? Be careful what you wish for.
the Baath party in Syria
What's wrong with them? You'd rather an Islamist party were in charge? At least those guys are more secularly oriented.
the insurgents in Iraq
Which ones? The Shia militia are IMO the core problem over there. They prevent the Shia majority from being able to present the Sunni an open hand and a place at the table. Some of them, of course, are supported by Iran. :mad:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a whole host of other religious islamofacist zealots who have turned the middle east into a place where beheading has made a comeback from the 10th century and folks yearn to wear explosive vests.
I am back on board with ya, off to Satan's Suburbs with them.

So, lets get down to brass tacks. To send them to hell, use those Israeli nuclear weapons. Once those bad guys are are gone, Israel doesn't need those nukes anymore. :D Israel can then sign the NPT. What say you?

DR

[Tony]

I say to hell with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the House of Saud, the Baath party in Syria, the insurgents in Iraq, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a whole host of other religious islamofacist zealots who have turned the middle east into a place where beheading has made a comeback from the 10th century and folks yearn to wear explosive vests.


Yeah, so do I:

I agree Dorian. To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east. That region is not worth another American life or dollar.

If we got rid of them, people would not have to worry about the next suicide bomber, Danish cartoon, Bin Laden, Taliban or Ahmadinejad.

Who is "we"? If they are such a problem for you, perhaps you should be doing something about it instead of posting on an internet forum.

[Dorian Gray]

We do know that wasn't OBL's problem, until he threw it in the mix recently.

You can't seem to understand that they simply hate the non-islamic west, and will use whatever flavor-of-the-day excuse they find handy.

You sound like a battered woman who thinks her husband wouldn't have beaten her that day if she would have just folded his clothes right...

Anyways, your OP made it sound like you'd be happy w/ a big honkin war in the ME for them to settle their borders once and for all, like they did in Europe and Asia last century. Are you still cool w/ that?
Define "they", and then come talk to me. OH yes, and also present powers-of-attorney demonstrating that you, in fact, speak for multiple people you've never met.

My OP made it sound like I want the number of reasons for terrorists to attempt to justify attacking Americans to be reduced by one. Your comment about a "big honkin war', on the other hand, made it sound like there isn't ALREADY a big honking war in the Middle East over, in part, the borders.

You sound like the husband.

[Dorian Gray]

So you need to be spoon fed information... try Google, it's a search engine. No, sir. If you make an assertion, you back it up or you withdraw it.

It is not a strawman that the Iraq war will cost more than aid to Israel since 1949. It is a fact. It's a fact that more people die from bee stings than from being hit by meteors. Equally relevant.

So what we should do is abandon countries that the terrorists tell us to so that they don't terrorize us. Ahhhhh...ok. Or we could stay there so that they do?

I can see now that instead of providing rebuttals with documentation you are only prone to ad homs. I must rebut with documentation, but if I want proof of a claim you make I must do the research myself? Douchebag.

Now THAT was an ad hom, unlike the post your quote refers to. My rebuttal was sound: Islamofascists attack Muslims of the opposing sect more frequently than they attack Americans.

Nowhere in my posts - or this thread for that matter - do I use the words "invading" or "forcing" or "clones of Israel". Those are strawmen you created. So far you are not exactly winning me - or many others I bet - over with your debating skills. I am aware that you didn't use those words, Captain Obvious - it's called "Irony".

The only way someone would win you over is if they were in lock-step with you. Guess what? People disagree, and in your case, they disagree frequently.

[Dorian Gray]

No you just want to end the practice of loan forgiveness? Is that it? What other "welfare" do you speak of?


[quote]I don't have to speak for terrorists to speak about them. I have analyzed their behavior, their writings and their speeches and on that basis I reject your notion that terrorists attack the West because of Israel. Terrorists who hate Israel will attack Israel (and do). They don't go after the secondary support farther away when they can hit the primary problem close to them. Last time I checked, the troops in Iraq were predominantly American. Iraq is pretty close, isn't it?

If someone is going to attack the US, it's because they hate what the US itself does, not because the US supports a nation that they hate. Mutully exclusive? Are you sure it couldn't be both at once?

By "justification" i mean that in contrast to the word "cause". I mean it in the sense that terrorists supply Israel as a reason for their terrorism after the fact. Why would they do that? If Israel isn't the reason, why would they say it is?

You're essentially saying "Don't listen to the terrorists who say they attack the US because of its support for Israel. Listen to me because I know the minds of all the terrorists better than they do." You make no sense.

[Dorian Gray]

No disrespect but this thread was started by the guy with the cartoon of spaghetti spilled over his gonads. He seems to have lost interest in his dopy position.:confused:

Appropriate emoticon. The only position I've seen you take is "Yeah, what he said!". In fact, it appears that the only reason you made that last post is so you could use the word 'gonads', and it sent you into such a giggling fit that you posted it twice. I wish your parents would monitor your internet use.

My avatar is ultimately an icon representing the separation of church and state, which has more than a little to do with this thread. I'm not surprised you didn't catch it.

[Dorian Gray]

"To hell with Israel and to hell with the middle east."...as he fills up the tank of his Escalade SUV! ;)


[quote]I say to hell with Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the House of Saud, the Baath party in Syria, the insurgents in Iraq, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a whole host of other religious islamofacist zealots who have turned the middle east into a place where beheading has made a comeback from the 10th century and folks yearn to wear explosive vests. Yeah, because beheading is much more barbaric than secret torture prisons, missiles or guns.

If we got rid of them, people would not have to worry about the next suicide bomber, Danish cartoon, Bin Laden, Taliban or Ahmadinejad.

But hey, that's just my opinion.:D Wow, your plan is so refreshingly simple! Just get rid of all the bad people in the world, and we can be worry-free! Golly.

[a_unique_person]

I am with you so far, though I wonder that the House of Saud isn't a moderating influence on the Wahabbi's. If they go, who replaces them? Be careful what you wish for.



The House of Saud was the Wahabbi's backer for a long time. Wahabism just happens to preach that you don't get involved in politics at all. :rolleyes:

A short sighted way of trying to keep themselves in power, and holding any moves to democracy at bay.

[zenith-nadir]

I am with you so far, though I wonder that the House of Saud isn't a moderating influence on the Wahabbi's. If they go, who replaces them? Be careful what you wish for.Any country - see: Saudi Arabia - where it is illegal for women to drive or vote in the 21st century is an evil place. Equal rights is a core fundamental of human rights and so far Saudia Arabia is at the very bottom of the human rights barrel.

What's wrong with them?What wrong with the Syrian regime? Really? You're asking? Hows a 40-year long support of terrorism to start. Then there is political killings, political detentions, torcher, imprisonment of intellectuals and opposition figures... and if that is not enough evidence to figure out what is wrong with the Syrian regime then I dunno what is.

You'd rather an Islamist party were in charge?Nope.

Which ones? The Shia militia are IMO the core problem over there. They prevent the Shia majority from being able to present the Sunni an open hand and a place at the table. Some of them, of course, are supported by Iran. :mad:It really boggles my mind that sunnis and shiites murder each other over who's more faithful and in the same breath expect us to respect Islam.

So, lets get down to brass tacks. To send them to hell, use those Israeli nuclear weapons. Once those bad guys are are gone, Israel doesn't need those nukes anymore. :D Israel can then sign the NPT. What say you?

DRThe nuclear option is not on the table. Arab countries who aspire to destroy Israel are deterred since they know it possesses nuclear weapons, the weapons are defensive not offensive.

Who is "we"? If they are such a problem for you, perhaps you should be doing something about it instead of posting on an internet forum.When islamists are flying planes in buildings in New York and Washington and burning embassies over Danish cartoons I feel "we" - as in the collective "we" - have a problem. Call me crazy. ;)

No, sir. If you make an assertion, you back it up or you withdraw it.So Googling is to much to ask. OK I'll spoon-feed you information.

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/) - March 17, 2006

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm) (As of November 1, 1997) - Grand Total $84,854,827,200 I'm standing by to hear my sources aren't good enough for you now.

It's a fact that more people die from bee stings than from being hit by meteors. Equally relevant.Ahhhh...the old "if you can't dazzle the with brains baffle them with B.S."

I must rebut with documentation, but if I want proof of a claim you make I must do the research myself? Douchebag. Name calling....how refreshing. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because beheading is much more barbaric than secret torture prisons, missiles or guns.America is eeeeevil, cuz they are as bad as islamists beheading hostages on video...ok.

Wow, your plan is so refreshingly simple! Just get rid of all the bad people in the world, and we can be worry-free! Golly.I didn't say "all the bad people in the world", you said "all the bad people in the world" so that you could be insulting and sarcastic. I would just like to start with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah.

[Darth Rotor]

Any country - see: Saudi Arabia - where it is illegal for women to drive or vote in the 21st century is an evil place. Equal rights is a core fundamental of human rights and so far Saudia Arabia is at the very bottom of the human rights barrel.
In your opinion, and I suspect based on the subjective measurement of various altruistic and well meaning societies like "Human Rights Watch."

The last time I checked, international accords and proclamations, such as the various documented wind from the UN, are only as good as their enforcement. This consistently run into the contradiction of presumed sovereignty: the UN is made up of (allegedly) peers who are sovereign states. So, the sovereign State of Saudi Arabia, for good or ill, doesn't let the women drive. ('Tis eco friendly policy, as a second order effect of reduced emissions, though my ends-justifies-the-means calculation doesn't compute on that one. )

The UN then pokes its nose into the Saudi's business, and says "Hey, we don't like your style, let the women drive." The sovereign state of Saudi Arabia says "Make me." The UN scratches it collective heads, and puts Syria on the panel for UN Human Rights.

*Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!*
What wrong with the Syrian regime? Really? You're asking? Hows a 40-year long support of terrorism to start.
That question was asked in companion to the inquiry of who would replace it, in Syria. Any Syrian government will derive from the Syrian polity. Next to Ba'athists, relatively secular if a bit bloodthirsty, what parties would fill in behind them?

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" ; "the morals that we worshipped will be gone" and "they decide and the shotgun sings the song" are some of the more perceptive lyrics related to governmental change / regime change to hit vinyl.

Z-N, face the real problem of your regime change fantasy. If you want the Ba'athists out, Z-N, what Syrian faction do you want in? Look at what a Ba'athist regime change has brought to Iraq. (Yes, a work in progress) The Christians of Syria make up less than 10% of the population. That party is going nowhere like the Presidential Palace in Damascus. The Alawites are also a small group, but they hold onto power via rather ruthless means, which takes us back to where we started, doesn't it? How do you feel about an Islamist party in Damascus being in charge?
It really boggles my mind that sunnis and shiites murder each other over who's more faithful and in the same breath expect us to respect Islam.
Like the Prots and Catholics did for centuries. *shrugs* Its what people do. The Tamils are also doing fine work in that regard.
The nuclear option is not on the table. Arab countries who aspire to destroy Israel are deterred since they know it possesses nuclear weapons, the weapons are defensive not offensive.
I certainly hope so. The :D was an indication of humorous intent.
When islamists are flying planes in buildings in New York and Washington and burning embassies over Danish cartoons I feel "we" - as in the collective "we" - have a problem. Call me crazy. ;)
I'll suggest that the Chinese don't give a flying fruitbat. One in 5 people on the planet.
I didn't say "all the bad people in the world", you said "all the bad people in the world" so that you could be insulting and sarcastic. I would just like to start with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah.
OK, just a small genocide, like the one in Serbrenica or Rwanda, right? :eek:

DR

[The Atheist]

OK, just a small genocide, like the one in Serbrenica or Rwanda, right?
DR
Mate, that is the problem in one sentence isn't it?

The only solution so far proposed involves more killing.

[Tony]

When islamists are flying planes in buildings in New York and Washington and burning embassies over Danish cartoons I feel "we" - as in the collective "we" - have a problem. Call me crazy. ;)

Yes, and our “problem” is Israel and the Middle East, which is why I say the hell with them both. It's a “problem” from which we can voluntarily extricate ourselves.

[Mishka Zaznaykin]

I agree, it worked for Spain when they extricated themselves from Iraq and it can work for the US too.

Although I don't think Osama cared too much about Israel, he started committing terrorist acts against US targets only because the US kept troops in Saudi Arabia.

[steverino]

The only position I've seen you take is "Yeah, what he said!".

Dorian, I made the following post a few days ago. If you disagree with it, fine, but it came from my heart and was original as it did not echo anyone else's position or post:

This perception that Israel is just a piece of gum on the bottom of America's shoe that has outworn its welcome is beyond ignorant. Israel has contributed much to the world outside the context of bullets. Much of Israel's innovation in heart surgeries has kept alive many parents of you Zion-haters. My girlfriend has MS and is doing well thanks to a wonderful drug developed in Israel. She does not know Natanya from Naharia, but she knows it is thanks to Israel that she can lead a normal life.
http://www.tevapharm.com/copaxone/

[marksman]

Dorian,

I would be happy to answer all of the questions you posted in repsonse to my last post to you, but only after you answer the question that I posed to you in that post, which you quoted, but neglected to answer.

I repeat it for your convenience.

Do you just want to end the practice of loan forgiveness? Is that it? What other "welfare" do you speak of?

More specifically:
What, precisely are the measures you advocate America take or refrain from taking with respect to Israel?

[a_unique_person]

I agree, it worked for Spain when they extricated themselves from Iraq and it can work for the US too.

Although I don't think Osama cared too much about Israel, he started committing terrorist acts against US targets only because the US kept troops in Saudi Arabia.

Apparently he did. He saw Israel as the start of the Western invasions of the ME.

[marksman]

Apparently he did. He saw Israel as the start of the Western invasions of the ME.

I'm pretty certain he saw the British and French mandates over the fallen Ottoman Empire as the start of Western invasions of the Middle East... in the 20th century.

He probably sees the Crusades as the first Western invasions of the Middle East since the birth of Mohammed. I'd also venture a guess that he, like much of the world, sees Alexander the Great's invasion of Egypt in the 4th century BCE as the start of Western invasions of the Middle East. (Though he'd probably be wrong... the invasion of the Sea Peoples from the Causasus Mountains circa 1300 BC was probably the earliest known Western invasion of the Middle East.)

[a_unique_person]

That has also been stated by others, the fundies see time in centuries, the crusades only happened yesterday.

[marksman]

Either way, Israel certainly wasn't the "the start of the Western invasions of the ME"

[a_unique_person]

The topic was not what the facts were, but what Osama saw the facts as.

[Darth Rotor]

Either way, Israel certainly wasn't the "the start of the Western invasions of the ME"
The Muslim invasion of Spain started in 711 AD. Some consider Ferdinand and Isabella's reconquista as a temporary setback. The establishment of Eurabia is being conducted as an infiltration, not as an invasion.

DR

[Mycroft]

The topic was not what the facts were, but what Osama saw the facts as.

At some point you have to ask if it's reasonable to see them that way.

[marksman]

The Muslim invasion of Spain started in 711 AD.
Quite true, and the very first recorded Middle Eastern invasion of Europe occurred when the Persian Empire attacked ancient Greece in 492 B.C. (which is one of the reasons so many Greeks were willing to conquer Persia).

Stupid 13th century BC Sea Peoples and their advanced iron weapons! It's all their fault!!

[RyanRoberts]

Yeah, but there was the battle of Troy before that. Then there's the whole golden fleece thing. You have to think of the root causes.

[marksman]

Naah. The Battle of Troy may have postdated the Sea People thing. It's kind of unclear.

And the Golden Fleece wasn't a Greek invesion of Asia. I mean the fleece was just sittig there on a tree guarded by a dragon right alongside the Hellespont. Jason probably didn't go farther than 20 feet into Asia. Of course, there's always the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent in 1500 BC. Damn those Aryans!!

[Darth Rotor]

Naah. The Battle of Troy may have postdated the Sea People thing. It's kind of unclear.

And the Golden Fleece wasn't a Greek invesion of Asia. I mean the fleece was just sittig there on a tree guarded by a dragon right alongside the Hellespont. Jason probably didn't go farther than 20 feet into Asia. Of course, there's always the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent in 1500 BC. Damn those Aryans!!
Aryans are/were Eurasian, not Eurabian. ;) If you look at the Eurasian landmass, it's one continent, not two, until one chooses to break it down by culture, which flows (mixes) along trade routes.

Damned Phonecians and their mercantile acumen!

DR