Israel dragging USA down

[Alceste]

I think it's unhelpful to talk of Israel as if it were homogenous.
In Israel there seems to me to be a balanced progressive view which I would like to support. This view seems to me to be manifest (for example) in Ha'aretz.
I would rather support this view than take an anti -Israeli stance because such a stance is going nowhere.

A fair point. When I talk about Israel and Palestine I am careful to distinguish between the government and the entire population. I think it's fair to say this Israeli government will not take a moderate stance, and that the US will support them. Canada and the UK will too, since we've both got fanatical conservatives who make important decisions based on gut feeling and ideology at the helm.

 

[Alceste]

China is still our b****h. There's an old saying....
If you owe the bank $1K, the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank $1M, you own the bank.
I have so much debt, that when I walk into TCF, they greet me by name & check my pulse.

Because the US is doing such a good job of influencing China's foreign policy so far lol.

 

[JacobEzra.]

USA and Israel against the rest of the world seems to be the upcoming situation at the UN. Is the USA reputation going to be damaged by opposing the Palestinian bid for statehood?

U.S. Takes Lonely Path In Opposing All Forms Of Palestinian Recognition

USA's reputation is already ****** with he rest of the world. And that is okay, especially when alot of the world thinks Israel shouldn't exist at all.

USA should still be a defender of the existence of Israel. In defending Israel if the Arabs were to gang up and attack them. But USA should still demand a better treatment of Palestinians, in allowing them to have a State and rule over themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because the US is doing such a good job of influencing China's foreign policy so far lol.

We haven't gone to war with them yet.
That's a major success.

 

[Alceste]

We haven't gone to war with them yet.
That's a major success.

That's because you know they'd beat you.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because you know they'd beat you.

They couldn't.....yet. They're likely facing a couple decades of military build-up to trounce us in direct conflict, presuming we fail to modernize at the same pace.
They don't even have a single functional aircraft carrier yet. (And no, their little training exercise with a Russian cast-off doesn't count.) But they couldn't afford
to beat us because our debt would become uncollectible.

 

[Alceste]

They couldn't.....yet. They're likely facing a couple decades of military build-up to trounce us in direct conflict, presuming we fail to modernize at the same pace.
They don't even have a single functional aircraft carrier yet. (And no, their little training exercise with a Russian cast-off doesn't count.) But they couldn't afford
to beat us because our debt would become uncollectible.

Face it, unless you're willing to start a nuclear war, you're not going to beat anybody, and if you DO start a nuclear war, everybody is going to lose, including you. In China, you wouldn't have a hope. There are four Chinese people for every American. They are the manufacturing engine of the world with a state-controlled economy and could easily and quickly produce whatever munitions they need with little or no outside help.

Anyway, it will remain a hypothetical question for the foreseeable future. If there's one thing America's warmongers know (or think they know) it's who they can and can't beat in a war, and China is number one on the "Can't" list. Afghanistan and Iraq were number one and two on the "Can" list, and look how that turned out.

Edited to add: America's military weakness is over-reliance on technology and reluctance to put troops in harm's way. Now that everybody and their dog has nukes, there's nothing you can develop that will give you the upper hand over a resisting foreign population.

 

[Revoltingest]

Face it, unless you're willing to start a nuclear war, you're not going to beat anybody....

Possible scenarios for war are not so simple as all or nothing. Moreover, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some power might think they could beat the MAD outcome.
I dun been in the business of weapon system design....simple it ain't.

There are four Chinese people for every American.

Not too big a problerm.

They are the manufacturing engine of the world with a state-controlled economy and could easily and quickly produce whatever munitions they need with little or no outside help.

This is why they will become a greater power in the future if we continue to decline.

Anyway, it will remain a hypothetical question for the foreseeable future. If there's one thing America's warmongers know (or think they know) it's who they can and can't beat in a war, and China is number one on the "Can't" list. Afghanistan and Iraq were number one and two on the "Can" list, and look how that turned out.

There are different kinds of wars. Direct & total conflict is not the same as half-hearted police actions.

Edited to add: America's military weakness is over-reliance on technology and reluctance to put troops in harm's way. Now that everybody and their dog has nukes, there's nothing you can develop that will give you the upper hand over a resisting foreign population.

It ain't as simple or predictable as you think.

 

[Alceste]

Possible scenarios for war are not so simple as all or nothing. Moreover, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some power might think they could beat the MAD outcome.
I dun been in the business of weapon system design....simple it ain't.


Not too big a problerm.

This is why they will become a greater power in the future if we continue to decline.

There are different kinds of wars. Direct & total conflict is not the same as half-hearted police actions.

It ain't as simple or predictable as you think.

I'm making my future predictions based on historical events. The US hasn't decisively won a war since 1945, and even that required the cooperation of the entire free world and was mostly due to Russia's contribution. Sure, you can make a really big mess, kill loads of civilians and temporarily replace governments. I'm not denying it. But can you achieve your foreign policy objectives through warfare? No. Never happens, unless your foreign policy objective is to enrich weapons manufacturers and be despised.

 

[Father Heathen]

Must be really difficult to leave the middle eastern politics in the middle eastern forums.

The involvement of the U.N. makes it international, thus this thread is in the proper section.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here is the thing, Israel does not start conflicts, they respond to them with a very heavy hand. It is really bad when you have to keep your neighbor so far away they cannot shoot rockets at you.

The U.S.A. would not be in Afghanistan and most likely Iraq if not for 9/11.

Just for the record, I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, what I am saying is, if we where not so upset at the time, we most likely would have not gone there.

Same for Israel. If folks would stop poking them with a stick, they would not respond so aggressively. I don't blame the Israeli's, they have had enough and they will not take any more.

I'm truly surprised that there has not been an attack on Iran actually.

One last point, why has not the Muslim community shown more compassion for the Palestinians?

No one has offered them any hospitality in their home countries. Why?

 

[Father Heathen]

One last point, why has not the Muslim community shown more compassion for the Palestinians?

No one has offered them any hospitality in there home countries. Why?

That's a good point. Why couldn't Israel's Arab neighbors offer Palestinians to migrate to their lands if their conditions are so terrible? Why couldn't Jordan set aside some of its own land for a Palestinian state? Surely they would be more comfortable and at home surrounded by a more familiar culture and welcoming people than where they are now.

 

[Alceste]

Here is the thing, Israel does not start conflicts, they respond to them with a very heavy hand. It is really bad when you have to keep your neighbor so far away they cannot shoot rockets at you.

The U.S.A. would not be in Afghanistan and most likely Iraq if not for 9/11.

Just for the record, I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, what I am saying is, if we where not so upset at the time, we most likely would have not gone there.

Same for Israel. If folks would stop poking them with a stick, they would not respond so aggressively. I don't blame the Israeli's, they have had enough and they will not take any more.

I'm truly surprised that there has not been an attack on Iran actually.

One last point, why has not the Muslim community shown more compassion for the Palestinians?

No one has offered them any hospitality in there home countries. Why?

Israel doesn't start conflicts? The establishment of Israel as a "Jewish homeland" didn't start a conflict? The expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 wasn't a provocation? The expansion of illegal settlements in Palestinian territories doesn't "start conflict"?

Maybe you are right - Israel's style is to relentlessly and steadily increase pressure on the Palestinian population by piling one outrage against human dignity on top of another until some frustrated, hopeless child throws a rock at a tank, then they shoot the child and bulldoze everybody's house. And if somebody fires a gun or abducts a soldier, watch out! Total war.

 

[Alceste]

That's a good point. Why couldn't Israel's Arab neighbors offer Palestinians to migrate to their lands if their conditions are so terrible? Why couldn't Jordan set aside some of its own land for a Palestinian state? Surely they would be more comfortable and at home surrounded by a more familiar culture and welcoming people than where they are now.

So you favor a policy of clearing all the Arabs out of Palestine and replacing them with Jews? You'd fit right in in the Knesset.

 

[Alceste]

One last point, why has not the Muslim community shown more compassion for the Palestinians?

No one has offered them any hospitality in their home countries. Why?

They show quite a bit of compassion via military and humanitarian aid and political support. It's not very compassionate to tell people who want to go home (if they are refugees from Isreal) or stay home (if they want to stay in Palestine) to just give up and leave their homes to their oppressors.

 

[England my lionheart]

The only result of recognition of a Palestinian state before there's a "Palestinian State" will be a full-scale war. Not sure why other countries are in favor of this unless they just want to watch the ensuing conflagration in the hopes that it will consume Israel and appease the Arab League(and, as a consequence, OPEC). Seriously, who wants to see full scale war in the Middle East?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Israel doesn't start conflicts? The establishment of Israel as a "Jewish homeland" didn't start a conflict? The expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 wasn't a provocation? The expansion of illegal settlements in Palestinian territories doesn't "start conflict"?

Maybe you are right - Israel's style is to relentlessly and steadily increase pressure on the Palestinian population by piling one outrage against human dignity on top of another until some frustrated, hopeless child throws a rock at a tank, then they shoot the child and bulldoze everybody's house. And if somebody fires a gun or abducts a soldier, watch out! Total war.

Perhaps Israel should go back to their boundaries just after the seven day war.

 

[JacobEzra.]

One last point, why has not the Muslim community shown more compassion for the Palestinians?

No one has offered them any hospitality in their home countries. Why?

Why leave their ancestral land to live in foreign land? Palestinians belong in Palestine. Muslim communities do help, when they are not stoped by Israel.

 

[Alceste]

 

[JacobEzra.]

That's a good point. Why couldn't Israel's Arab neighbors offer Palestinians to migrate to their lands if their conditions are so terrible? Why couldn't Jordan set aside some of its own land for a Palestinian state? Surely they would be more comfortable and at home surrounded by a more familiar culture and welcoming people than where they are now.

And if you are a poor black american, why not just move to Africa, right?