I'm saying you aren't addressing the muslim brotherhood when it warrants inclusion on your historical perspective in comparison to the beliefs and activities of today... As I stated there is a distinction in beliefs and activities,...Hamas has a charter which calls for the destruction of Israel...Last I checked,...Israel has no charter for the destruction of Palestine...Also those who suicide bomb, do so with an attempt to cause indiscriminate civilian carnage...Those that target buses care not if women ...or children...are on the bus...Sick....They care not of the value of innocent lives or heck even their own lives... There is a clear and distinct differance in beliefs and activities...If Al Qaeda, Hamas or hezbollah had our military there is 100% no doubt that they would do what they do,...cause carnage to civilians,...re: 9/11... Again it's due to a distinction in beliefs and activities...These types of middle-eastern based terrorists, had an opportunity to directly attack the command and control of the U.S.,: the White House, Pentagon, House of Reps, the Capital... Well you might want to pat them on the back for the Pentagon, and another which failed on flight 93,...but what about the twin towers? The only thing I can think of as a tactical purpose was to maximize civilian carnage....I recall a picture of a very cute asian baby girl making an exciting first plane trip on the initial doomed flight,...along with her parents....nothing...but...fiery ash into the Pentagon...Happy about that? I'm sure you might not be...But they danced in the streets of some of the middle-eastern based countries...Why? A distinction in beliefs and activities....Simple. Well you know those crazy liberals,...I can't speak for them, perhaps you can...but I can see the distinction of beliefs and activities which make terrorists what they are compared to the majority of us who value life, rights, and choice...
Nice cop out. The U.S. has been an Israeli ally for decades, so if you don't know why then what the hell are you suporting it for?
Last I checked you have absolutely no knowledge of the following: 1) Israel's charter. What you know is what they have said, and you seem to be fuzzy on that as well. 2) That Hamas/Hezbollah etc. would even exist if the Middle East was in a position of more power. Nevermind that they would not dare target civilians. 3) The dancing in the streets argument again... The equivalent of McCain saying you should just nuke the Middle East or the people who are voting for Hillary because they think Obama is Muslim. These are the exceptions, not the norm. In trying to "save" Iraq, it's estimated that the U.S. has killed more civilians than Saddam himself. Now the plan is to leave. I feel bad for the U.S. troops and for the Iraqi people who were played like puppets. You, however, only choose to see one side of the story which is why your examples are poor, your sources are non-existant and that makes your bias clear as day.
I know why...O, Yes...Given Obama is better at rhetoric and explaining these things, I have decided to allow him to answer that for you.
Let's see I have thouroughly examined Israel's charter and let's see here:..the call for the destruction of fill in the blank country....Whooop, not there... strike 1. What?...strike 2 on grounds of making no sense as usual, but extra so in this case... Strike 3!...The distinction of beliefs and activities is there has been a zero activity of such dancing from people in the U.S. when Muslim people die...
3 more cop outs. Nice. 1) The US alliance with Israel would not exist if not for Israel's ambitions in the Middle East. Maybe you can answer the question since I can't ask Obama directly? Stop wussing out and answer the question. 2) There would be no Hezbollah/Hamas/etc if certain criminal and terrorist "events" didn't take place in the past. Their existence is the result of oppression. Whether what they do is right or wrong is a different conversation. But that is why they exist. So don't tell me that if they had access to superior weapons they would still taget civilians. They wouldn't even exist. So don't act like you know anything about it. There is no track record to prove it. You are making a ridiculously biased assumption. 3) Thanks for clarifying your thought process. What you meant to say was no one danced when Iraqis (not Muslims) died. The terrorists didn't target a religion, they targeted a nationality (thats what they think at least). In any event, you're wrong. They celebrated when hanging Saddam without a fair trial. They will celebrate when Osama Bin Laden dies. They will not remember the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died for that to happen. Does finding Saddam and/or Bin Laden warrant the death of this many civilians? Please answer this question.
Why won't Obama give us an answer? The real question you should ask is why Obama holds such a valued view of the partnership between Israel and the U.S , while not addressing the reasoning....I have my own reasoning, but I am a common and lowly citizen...It is more critical to understand his methodology on why and how this very important, and stated view contributes to his strategic plan for the Middle-East... That is a question, perhaps we should explore within ourselves for understanding...
Waste of time. Stay behind your rock. But I will bookmark this thread to occasionally remind you of how you provided exactly 0 backup for your opinions.
The US alliance with Israel exists because the various Arabs decided to ally with the Soviet Union and start spouting Marxist-Leninist rhetoric. Before that Israel's prime allies were Brittan and France.
Well, that's rather broad, but in general, also very true. Before Jack Kennedy decided to sell Hawk air defense missiles to Israel, Israel had depended almost exclusively on Great Britain and France for its arms. Kennedy "broke the ice" of a long US policy not to provide arms to the Jewish state and a policy that was relatively even handed in the region. As you said, it was directly related to the Cold War. Kennedy (and Ike, before him) were looking for allies in the region to prevent Soviet influence over a vital, stategic area... source of so much of the world's energy (although not for us, at least not then) and vital for many other reasons, Suez and simply the location alone cried out for the US to insure the USSR didn't get too great a foothold there. We would have become allied with Egypt and Nasser, had Nasser expressed sincere interest in that. After all, we had stopped Britain, France and Israel from taking Suez, to their complete astonishment. One would think Egypt, in particular, would see us as a natural ally, but it was not to be. From the decision by Kennedy to sell those Hawk missiles flowed an ever increasing amount of US arms and US aid. And everyone should remember, when we are criticized for not influencing Israel to moderate its policies, to do or not do something diplomatically more in harmony with US interests, and other things (like Israel's atomics program) we've asked them to change course on, that Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon all were very frustrated by Israel's refusal to listen to any counsel but their own. So what we experience today is nothing new. The genesis of our relations, however, starts with the Cold War and Jack Kennedy. Pretty trippy. Impeach Bush.
Well have you taken into account that America has killed more Iraqis than Sadam ever did? I would suspect that we have imprisoned about as many Iraqis as Sadam did. Despite Abu Graib I think we have probably tortured less. The majority of both Iraqis and Americans want us to leave soon.. I guess like Cheney you would say: "So?" while occasionally talking in lofty abstract terms about democracy and freedom. How long would you want us to keep fighting a war and engaging in an occupation that only a minority in either country wants?
Thanks for the history lesson. Well we don't have the Soviet Union to worry about. When is the last time we we opposed any policy that Israel wants? How to explain this? The Israeli lobby? Too bad we pretty much support every move by Israel to expand and have completely lost our ability to play a role in any sort of peaceful settlement.
So, the deal was to keep the Soviet presence in check in exchange for weapons. When policies were questioned, they were ignored. Understandeably so - it wasn't part of the deal. Can we say America has bargaining power here? To me it appears as though the US has bargaining power here. The upper hand. What I don't understand is how this deteriorated to: - We may not like your policies, but we won't do anything about them. - There is no Soviet presence, so go ahead with your own plans. - We'll keep providing you with weapons and political support even though yor policies are questioned by the rest of the world and the "mission" is complete. What is Israel doing, currently, that is worth SO MUCH to the U.S.? This raises two questions in my mind: 1) Was the deal to provide support and weapons FOREVER in exchange for keeping the Soviets in check? 2) What happened to the bargaining power? It seems like Israel is steering the ship now.
What are Israel's ambitions in the ME? Not to have more attempts at getting annihilated like the seven versus one Six Day War? Keeping the land they won from said war that began with a sneak attack? I think Israel can take care of themselves without our direct involvement and aid, but to call them ambitious because they actually won and survived another day is a bit too biased to me.
Your logic is flawed. Israel did not exist at the time. Can you comprehend that? Also how was it a sneak attack when Israeli was (out of nowhere) fully armed and prepared? Unless you are insinuating that the ability to win a war means you should go ahead and invade a country for yourself? Why did the U.S. have a problem with Iraq-Kuwait then? Your logic is also flawed where you say "won and survived another day". It does not explain how and why Israel's borders expanded after this brave survival and gradually continued to expand as the years went on. However you are absolutely right in that they don't need you anymore. They can take care of themselves now. But, they wouldn't have been able to "take care" of themselves back then without the events which Deckard described in his post. As George from Seinfeld says, you have no "hand" now.
Israel has evolved into a key, if highly independent, ally of the US in the region. More to the point of what you are wondering, it has also become pivotal in US Congressional and Presidential politics. I'm trying to remember the last time someone was successful running for office, except on the fringes of the mainstream, especially on the national level, who wasn't campaigning as a strong friend and ally of Israel. Can anyone help me out? With a few exceptions, maybe, I can't think of anybody. So if what you are looking for is an answer that says Israel has enormous political influence in the good old USA, you would be right. And that doesn't mean that influence is wrong, either. The right and wrong of Israeli political influence here, as the right or wrong of their accepting massive US aid, while basically doing whatever they want, is in the eye of the beholder. We have always put up with fractious allies, if it was seen as in our interests to do so. I think that is much of what we are seeing with Israel. Sort of like putting up with an irritating relative because, well, it's a relative. I think our relationship with Israel has evolved into something like that. And to be fair, they have to put up with our changing governments and attendant changes in US policy. That's my take, anyway. Someone see it differently? Impeach Bush. Send Him to Gaza!
