Why support Israel...??? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 06-16-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I think that we can all respect an isolationist. There is a lot to be said in favor of circling the wagons and letting the rest of the world go to hell. I don't think that is either a feasible or a sustainable policy -- but oh well. I think that is hard to be an isolationist in light of the shrinking size of the world. But as a general principle, isolationism has advocates who are both intelligent and well-reasoned. I can respect that -- even if I don't agree with the argument or thought process.

What will it take to convince you? What part is missing in the puzzle?

I dunno. If it isn't feasable or sustainable, what is the point?

Probably nothing will convice him seeing as how he believes that the world is nice and fair but for one spot (the USA).

Botnst · #32 06-16-2006, 01:57 PM

On the first day, the UN created Israel.

And it was good.

Zeitgeist · #33 06-16-2006, 01:58 PM

Oi vey You're a fan of exercizing global hegemony; I'm not. I'm simply not comfortable sanctifying the status quo, especially when it's proven to be such a demonstrable failure time and again; you clearly are. I've been down this particular rabbit hole here on OD many times before, and each time it's been similarly fruitless. You reject my paradigm; I reject yours--whatevah

BENZ-LGB · #34 06-16-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I dunno. If it isn't feasable or sustainable, what is the point?

Probably nothing will convice him seeing as how he believes that the world is nice and fair but for one spot (the USA).

I agree -- what IS the point.

But I can respect a person's belief system (even if I disagree with it) as long as they can explain it in terms other than "well I hate the US or I hate Bush."

I also agree with the second part of your post.

aklim · #35 06-16-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Oi vey You're a fan of exercizing global hegemony; I'm not. I'm simply not comfortable sanctifying the status quo, especially when it's proven to be such a demonstrable failure time and again; you clearly are. I've been down this particular rabbit hole here on OD many times before, and each time it's been similarly fruitless. You reject my paradigm; I reject yours--whatevah

Whether you sanctify it or not is irrelavant to me or the rest of the world. It is being done period. So, you can either jump on the bandwagon or get rolled over it if it comes too close to you since the wagon is moving anyways. It's nice to hold on to your principles in this case but when someone does something you don't like, don't complain. Somewhat similar to people who are eligible to vote but don't and whine that their candidate didn't get the nod.

BENZ-LGB · #36 06-16-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Oi vey You're a fan of exercizing global hegemony; I'm not. I'm simply not comfortable sanctifying the status quo, especially when it's proven to be such a demonstrable failure time and again; you clearly are. I've been down this particular rabbit hole here on OD many times before, and each time it's been similarly fruitless. You reject my paradigm; I reject yours--whatevah

So,you DID oppose Clinton's excursions into the realm of foreign policy, right?

You opposed the invasion of Haiti?

You opposed what we did in Bosnia?

You opposed what we did in Somalia?

You opposed the firing of missiles at OBL (that probably really pissed him off)?

I just want to get a feel for where you stand.

That's all bro...

BENZ-LGB · #37 06-16-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Whether you sanctify it or not is irrelavant to me or the rest of the world. It is being done period. So, you can either jump on the bandwagon or get rolled over it if it comes too close to you since the wagon is moving anyways. It's nice to hold on to your principles in this case but when someone does something you don't like, don't complain. Somewhat similar to people who are eligible to vote but don't and whine that their candidate didn't get the nod.

It is a question of whether you want to be....

...the bug or the windshield?

...the ball or the Louisville slugger?

In both instances I chose the latter.

Lebenz · #38 06-16-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

I'd prefer a paradigm shift, whereby we maintain equally neutral relations with all nations everywhere.

It is a nice, even kind of romantic ideal, but when you consider that everyone in the USA is from somewhere else, and add to that consideration that all these folk want their powerful unk Sammy to help the less powerful, you have what we have now. How to turn our backs on the world in the name of appeasing the US population? Never gonna happen. So we have the mess we have.

Zeitgeist · #39 06-16-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Whether you sanctify it or not is irrelavant to me or the rest of the world. It is being done period. So, you can either jump on the bandwagon or get rolled over it if it comes too close to you since the wagon is moving anyways. It's nice to hold on to your principles in this case but when someone does something you don't like, don't complain. Somewhat similar to people who are eligible to vote but don't and whine that their candidate didn't get the nod.

The Iraq fiasco is presently happening; should I just jump on the bandwagon, then? My principled opposition to that fiasco doesn't mount to hill of beans, so why bother, eh? What the hell are you attempting to impart here?

Zeitgeist · #40 06-16-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

So,you DID oppose Clinton's excursions into the realm of foreign policy, right?

You opposed the invasion of Haiti?

You opposed what we did in Bosnia?

You opposed what we did in Somalia?

You opposed the firing of missiles at OBL (that probably really pissed him off)?

I just want to get a feel for where you stand.

That's all bro...

So, this is just a partisan thing, eh "bro"? I don't need a political party to tell me how to think, or what to support. And no, I didn't, nor would I ever support those types of unwise foreign misadventures. The US military should rightfully be restricted to defending this nation's borders, airspace and territorial waters...and that's about it. Let the UN do its job and maintain global comity.

aklim · #41 06-16-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

The Iraq fiasco is presently happening; should I just jump on the bandwagon, then? My principled opposition to that fiasco doesn't mount to hill of beans, so why bother, eh? What the hell are you attempting to impart here?

Well, like I said before, look at the rulebook before you go any further. See what rules they are playing by and proceed from there. What does the rest of the world use for a rulebook? Do they really do what they say or do they say "Do as I say and not as I do?" You want to talk of peddling influence yet you are unable to assure me that if you went to the country of your choice they don't do the same. What are YOU asking for? What are YOU trying to impart here?

The Iraq fiasco is our doing. The issue was that they broke their agreements, etc, etc. If that is in dispute, please let me know. If they had not played shell games, would we be even having this discussion? Probably not. IIRC, it was believed by the world since we didn't quite believe in creation and destruction of matter. That would explain the numerous resolutions, etc, etc. The people with the veto, like in the cold war, opposed each other for their own reasons. So, as per usual, nothing got done. The French and Germans had lucrative contracts and now they have scrap paper to make bookmarks with. The Russians had IOUs but like the French and Germans, they now have scrap paper. So, do you really believe that they really would vote for war and a regime change? Doubtful. Back to us now. It was deemed in our interests to take care of Hussien before a larger problem came out of it. However support at home was weak because, like you, we wish that the woodcutter would come and take care of Hussien. So, we didn't want too large a footprint there so we sent fewer troops. Fewer troops = more issues. More issues = difficulty in sending more troops to take care of the issue.

aklim · #42 06-16-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

So, this is just a partisan thing, eh "bro"? I don't need a political party to tell me how to think, or what to support. And no, I didn't, nor would I ever support those types of unwise foreign misadventures. The US military should rightfully be restricted to defending this nation's borders, airspace and territorial waters...and that's about it. Let the UN do its job and maintain global comity.

The UN? Why? They are a bigger fawkup than most anything. When they want some military force, they will know how to call on some idiot with the muscle. But lets say we do it your way for the sake or arguement. Those are other nations out there that are going to decide our direction. So, would you trust them to direct things and be as fair as you about it? IOW, whose interests would they serve first? Their's or ours? Who are they answerable to? Our voters or their own? With that answer in mind, why would we trust them?

Please reread Little Red Riding Hood. You will see a lot of parallels between you and her. The evil wolf wants to kill people but the good and gentle woodcutter (the UN) will come along and solve your problems and quietly disappear with no wants of his own. When you are past that, I will direct you to a few spook movies where the children summon the devil to do their bidding and then wonder why the devil doesn't simply go away, having done it's job.

aklim · #43 06-16-2006, 03:25 PM

Anyhow, in reference to the original question, maybe part of the reason we support them is that we need someone from time to time to do some dirty work there. None of those states are friendly to us and sometimes it is good to maintain a staging area with which we can do clandestine stuff. Kinda of the ace in the sleeve.

Zeitgeist · #44 06-16-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, like I said before, look at the rulebook before you go any further. See what rules they are playing by and proceed from there. What does the rest of the world use for a rulebook? Do they really do what they say or do they say "Do as I say and not as I do?" You want to talk of peddling influence yet you are unable to assure me that if you went to the country of your choice they don't do the same. What are YOU asking for? What are YOU trying to impart here?

The Iraq fiasco is our doing. The issue was that they broke their agreements, etc, etc. If that is in dispute, please let me know. If they had not played shell games, would we be even having this discussion? Probably not. IIRC, it was believed by the world since we didn't quite believe in creation and destruction of matter. That would explain the numerous resolutions, etc, etc. The people with the veto, like in the cold war, opposed each other for their own reasons. So, as per usual, nothing got done. The French and Germans had lucrative contracts and now they have scrap paper to make bookmarks with. The Russians had IOUs but like the French and Germans, they now have scrap paper. So, do you really believe that they really would vote for war and a regime change? Doubtful. Back to us now. It was deemed in our interests to take care of Hussien before a larger problem came out of it. However support at home was weak because, like you, we wish that the woodcutter would come and take care of Hussien. So, we didn't want too large a footprint there so we sent fewer troops. Fewer troops = more issues. More issues = difficulty in sending more troops to take care of the issue.

Again, I reject the rulebook.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy that did some bad stuff in the past--bfd. What is in dispute is the pathway we elected to follow. Despite their cynical motives for doing so, those opposing nations opted correctly to resist US unilateral efforts to attack, invade and occupy the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq--bfd. It is in this nation's interest to take care of our own affairs, first and foremost. If Israel had a problem with Saddam Hussein, then that's their concern, and theirs alone. They're more than capable of dealing with any regional player around there. If we've allowed ourselves to become addicted to substances found in another region of the globe, then we need to internally re-assess our priorities; that's principally a domestic matter. The Arabs and Persians aren't obligated to feed our nasty little habit with their sovereign resources, and we have no right to simply confiscate them either; which is exactly what this little fiasco is all about.

Ethan · #45 06-16-2006, 04:29 PM

Bahrain has a very nice Formula One level race track, does Isreal?