America, Israel and Iran page 2

127 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

Darear
Yes, we know you think that Zionists are controlling the world – you said this already.
How many other idiots are roaming this poor globe out there…
(Rhetorical question…)

MyTie
I totally agree with your point above – people don’t care a shit, until that very shit happens to THEM.

TO ALL
No, I will NOT participate in further discussions – I finally learned my lesson of not wasting MY time.

Are you referring to me as an idiot? You are seriously misinformed if you are then. Please research Israel’s history of war crimes and human rights abuses.

 
Flag Post

MyTie, as usual you are being a bit intellectually dishonest. Let’s review the post you were responding to, shall we? I have removed the first part of Beau’s post since it is obvious from the flow of both, that you were not responding to the first segment, and I would like to keep quoting to a minimum:

Originally posted by beauval:

Finally, if the United States attacked Iran to stop it from gaining a nuclear weapon, is it for the benefit solely of Israel or for all of the world?

I certainly wouldn’t consider that it was for my benefit. Another war in the Middle East? That’s all I’m short of! And America coudn’t afford it right now anyway. We could kiss any economic recovery goodbye if they try.

I’ve been saying this until I’m blue in the face, but you cannot solve a problem like the one America has with Iran by posturing and making a load of idle threats. Talk to them, for Christ’s sake. Make the effort to find a bit of common ground, something in the way of shared interests. And then build on it. It can start with something as simple as a few cultural exchanges just to break the ice. It’s the kind of we were doing with the Soviet block even before the cold war began to thaw. BTW Flabby, I do realise you are not from America.

  
Originally posted by MyTie:

And our economic recovery would do well if the price of gas skyrocketed because a nuclear Iran held the middle east hostage? Sounds legit.

As you can see, the context of your post is extremely clear. If you wished to do something other than advocate war with Iran just to save yourself a few cents on gas, you should perhaps have paid more attention to the context in which you spoke, and how you phrased your argument, since that is what you actually said, whether you wish to admit it or not.

As such it was not a ‘strawman’ Beau or I were responding to. Rather it was your actual argument, as phrased in your reply to Beauval’s arguments.

As the person making the statement, it is up to you to frame it in the proper context, and be clear on what you are communicating to others.

 
Flag Post

damn you vika, I see you’ve ninja’d me again, but I’ll post this anyway.

@ MyTie

Ok, let’s take the points that were mentioned in sequence.

Flabby’s OP placed a hypothetical American attack on Iran in the same context as Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.
My reply placed economic recovery in the same context as such an attack.
Your rebuttal placed preventing Iran from going nuclear in the same context as the price of petrol, which suggested that you advocated a war on Iran for a very trivial reason. I assumed that by “gas” you meant gasoline for running cars rather than gas for heating homes.

Now I did say “just for a moment I thought…”, giving you the opportunity to tell me I had misunderstood your priorities. There was no need for a hissy fit. I do realise that you being very right wing and religious is going to mean a lot of differences of opinion between me and thee, but arguing the toss is what this forum is supposed to be all about.

A nuclear Iran has a great potential to hurt the price of gas, and therefore the US economic recovery.

It has the potential to hurt everyone’s economic revovery. In our 21st century global village, everyone has the potential to hurt someone else. The US could damage the EU, the EU could damage Japan and so on, but being able to do it is not the same as actually doing it. Every nation on earth understands that. The EU has a lot of disagreements with the Russians, but that hasn’t stopped us becoming dependent on them for gas (methane) supplies. We’re actually on quite good terms with them these days, and they’re not about to turn the gas off because we don’t like their foreign policy. They like our money too much to do that.

There always seems to be this undercurrent of opinion among the American right that if you are at loggerheads with another country, the best answer is “let’s send in GI Joe and show them who’s boss”. You really need to accept, even to celebrate, the differences. Talking to people in a civilised way will always get better long term results than threatening them.

And I don’t agree that raising the price of gasoline woulld be nearly as disastrous as getting embroiled in another war about oil. You would soon get used to and deal with the universal price rises caused by dearer gasoline, but a war with Iran could drag on for years, and suck the life out of what is left of the American economy.

 
Flag Post

What obligations does the United States have to Israel? And if there are obligations, how far should the United States go to meet those obligations?

Absolutely zero obligation, beyond the terms of any specific signed pacts. And those may warrant some review.

Finally, if the United States attacked Iran to stop it from gaining a nuclear weapon, is it for the benefit solely of Israel or for all of the world?

They’d certainly be top of the list, but if Iran actually dropped a nuke on Israel that would unleash such a shitstorm of epic proportions everything everywhere would be seriously affected. So, the world?

But yes, as pointed out there are alternative options that should be pursued.

Since Oil came up, I figured I’d share a few things from the EIA’s website.

Thank you for sharing that. Must say I found it a bit shocking, things have improved pretty significantly. Good job US energy policy.

Israel has 200 to 300 nukes, why are we not angered by that?

I agree that Israel is a nuclear power, and that is a potential problem. But care to cite that number?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:As the person making the statement, it is up to you to frame it in the proper context, and be clear on what you are communicating to others.

So because I didn’t make it explicitly clear in the first place, means that you can assume it? That’s interesting. You’re last post didn’t make it explicitly clear that you don’t enjoy eating poo. That’s pretty disgusting of you vikaTae. I jest.

No. You cannot assume things about other people’s communication just because they didn’t rule it out. If you need clarification, ask for it, don’t simply ASSUME it, and then insist that’s what I meant to other people. That’s not dishonest of me, it’s dishonest of you.

@beauval

My reply was directly related to your sentence:

I certainly wouldn’t consider that it was for my benefit. Another war in the Middle East? That’s all I’m short of! And America coudn’t afford it right now anyway. We could kiss any economic recovery goodbye if they try.
To say that I’m arguing against allowing Iran to get a nuke, in the face of your posturing to prevent war, shouldn’t be taken to mean I advocate war. I’m suggesting a middle ground, which I then later clarified.

Picture, for instance, we were discussing fire prevention for a house. You could argue that we shouldn’t put a fire alarm on every 2 ft/sq section of ceiling. I could then tell you that we shouldn’t allow our house to burn down. Both of those would be ruling out the extreme. To then insist that I DO want a fire alarm on every 2 ft/sq section of ceiling would be to attribute your anti-thesis to me. Then, when I clarify to say that I think we should have a tactical and precise approach to fire prevention, to then have people CONTINUING to insist that I want alarms on every 2 ft/sq section of ceiling, isn’t accurate.

Listen, let’s drop this he said/she said idiocy. You can read my posts if you want, and you’re more than welcome to read anything you want INTO them if you want, accurate or not. I might ignore you, but that’s your decision.

Let’s draw our attention to the topic at hand. A massive troop buildup and military presence from the US in Iran would not be beneficial to the US economic recovery. However, if we were to do a 1 week bombing excursion into Iran, taking out their government centers, and using intel to knock out their nuclear sites, I believe it would be sufficient to at least remove the threat of an Iran bomb for at least a decade, and not be necessary to be there for more than a week, and limiting our presence to an airborne presence.

I don’t think anyone here believes a nuclear Iran is a good thing, and I don’t think anyone here believes that another all out war is a good thing.

The obvious drawback to my plan would be the chaos it would create for the civilians in Iran, after stability was obliterated.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:What obligations does the United States have to Israel? And if there are obligations, how far should the United States go to meet those obligations?

I’ve never understood the mentality of western citizens who don’t want to assist and defend their closest middle eastern ally. What cost is Israel to you? What contribution does it make toward your interests in a volatile part of the world? Doesn’t the contribution outweigh the costs?

 
Flag Post

Let’s draw our attention to the topic at hand. A massive troop buildup and military presence from the US in Iran would not be beneficial to the US economic recovery. However, if we were to do a 1 week bombing excursion into Iran, taking out their government centers, and using intel to knock out their nuclear sites, I believe it would be sufficient to at least remove the threat of an Iran bomb for at least a decade, and not be necessary to be there for more than a week, and limiting our presence to an airborne presence.

I don’t think anyone here believes a nuclear Iran is a good thing, and I don’t think anyone here believes that another all out war is a good thing.

The obvious drawback to my plan would be the chaos it would create for the civilians in Iran, after stability was obliterated.

The chaos for the civilians in Iran, not to mention the mass death and destruction, would be the least of the drawbacks. The result of a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iran would be a diplomatic shitstorm beyond imagination engulfing the USA. The fallout would last for years. The rest of the world would be desperate to distance itself from any such action, and America would find itself isolated. Foreign investment in America would dry up, trade sanctions would very likely be imposed by many countries, a few billion people would refuse to buy any goods that even remotely looked as if they originated in America. Diplomatic relations with (important) countries like Russia and China would be soured for the foreseeable future. You could expect more attacks on your embassies like the disgraceful incident a couple of days ago in Libya, and you could expect more incidents like 9/11. You might say that it could all be over in a week, but the Iranians, not to mention all the other Islamic countries, would have very different ideas.

World opinion counts for a lot these days. You can’t go lashing out at other countries which displease you in the way we Europeans did two hundred years ago. The only world opinion that counted then were the other European powers, and they were too busy building their own empires to care about any outrages perpetrated by their rivals.

Iran would not be the first Islamic country to get nuclear capability. Pakistan has had it for years. It’s why the west has backed some very dubious governments there, because they are not sqeamish about how they keep their own militants under control. The spectre of Iran with a nuclear weapon in overrated. It’s a worry of course, but them having one, being able to deliver it, and actually doing so are three very different things.

 
Flag Post

And then there is the fact that if they develop nuclear weapons they can destroy a few mayor cities which would be really bad. But then they would be without any ability to react to being attacked themselves so the US would probably conquer them in a few days (or at least dispose of the people responsible for the attack). This is why the chance of them using their nuclear weapons is small. Your best bet would be to show the people living there that the western world isn’t that bad. For example by sending aid after disasters even if the government is against it. Also getting some sort of media there is very important for example by spreading mobile phones with internet access. This would slowly increase the amount of people that is pro western and therefor take over the country from within (with the help of the people).

 
Flag Post

“Security Council Resolution 687, that ended the first Gulf War, requires a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East. Israel, which reportedly has an arsenal of 200-300 nuclear weapons, stands in violation of that resolution. Israel refuses to sign the NPT, thus avoiding inspections by the IAEA. As Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull advocate in a recent op-ed in the Times, we should work toward a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, and that includes Israel. They cite a poll in which 65 percent of Israeli Jews think it would be best if neither Israel nor Iran had the bomb, even if that means Israel giving up its nukes”

Israel has the potential to build even more than that.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pressure-israel-not-iran-israel-has-an-arsenal-of-200-300-nuclear-weapons/

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

I’ve never understood the mentality of western citizens who don’t want to assist and defend their closest middle eastern ally. What cost is Israel to you? What contribution does it make toward your interests in a volatile part of the world? Doesn’t the contribution outweigh the costs?

What is it exactly that makes Israel an active ally of the west? They’ve carried out countless false flag operations on the pretense of being the western powers so that they get blamed for wantonly illegal war actions. Not too long long ago they carried out a series of assassinations against Canadian scientists engaged in weapon development. They’ve never been shy about putting their own interests first; I don’t see exactly what it is they offer to us.

I’ve got serious qualms about a racio-theo state engineered to fulfill prophecy and born out of a victimization complex. It’s a dangerous mentality in a dangerous space, getting too close to something that risky seems a good way to get burned. What cost is Israel to me? Well I’m a Canadian, so not that much ;) as for you US types… you guys just promised Israel 30 Billion in military aid, which is a pretty hefty sum. So the first cost, is well money. Secondly, reputation; Israel has been forced to some pretty desperate measures to continue existing and it’s not the sort of behavior I feel uniformly comfortable endorsing let alone financing.

What contribution does it make to a volatile part of the world? It makes it a lot more volatile, it brings to a head problems of territory, race, religion and make it an immediate fighting ground up in everyone’s backyard. I don’t see what Israel manages to accomplish that I really care that much about.

Darear,

Hm, the article itself doesn’t cite where they received that figure from. I hate to quibble. I do believe Israel is a nuclear power, and has a nuclear arsenal. That is just a much higher figure then I’ve bumped into before. They certainly have the potential to build more then that, really as much as they choose. It’s just they really do not need that many to deal with opposition, and that they’re still actively engaged in denying they are a nuclear power.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

MyTie,

I don’t see what Israel manages to accomplish that I really care that much about.

It is not much I know, but they are very good at advancing the cause of medical science. Several of the modern intelligent assist surgery systems including the cyber knife and da Vinci came in whole or in part, out of their research programs. So have several new varieties of slice-based imaging tech for diagnostics, and at least one method to reduce distortion in slice-based optical imaging.

So, they do some good, just not enough to offset the political and military trouble their government causes.

 
Flag Post

A military ally in the middle east. If the USA cuts ties with Isreal and lets them get obliterated, everyone will see the US as weak, and its foreign policy will be a sham. At that point all of the US’s enemies will come out of the woodwork. It wouldn’t be pretty.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

A military ally in the middle east. If the USA cuts ties with Isreal and lets them get obliterated, everyone will see the US as weak, and its foreign policy will be a sham. At that point all of the US’s enemies will come out of the woodwork. It wouldn’t be pretty.

1. Why do we even get involved with anything in the middle east let them deal with it themselves…
2. and Why should we give a damn if everyone says that we are weak?
3. you really like the worst case scenario don’t you?

 
Flag Post

It’s not really a worst case scenario. It’s just what would happen if the US abandoned its allies. I don’t feel like going into what would happen if the US had no foreign policy for the middle east. Take a college class in political science.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

It’s not really a worst case scenario. It’s just what would happen if the US abandoned its allies. I don’t feel like going into what would happen if the US had no foreign policy for the middle east. Take a college class in political science.

1. I said why would we care? you didn’t answer
2. Why don’t you go into it then? gosh it only takes a minuet.
3. hahahahaha no most college teachers are liberal so when they teach politics they try to get everyone in the class to agree that liberalism is good. I frankily do not want my political stance influenced by such people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

It’s not really a worst case scenario. It’s just what would happen if the US abandoned its allies. I don’t feel like going into what would happen if the US had no foreign policy for the middle east. Take a college class in political science.

If you had any vague understanding of history, you’d be aware that the very presence of Israel, since its re-settling post WWII, is kind of a BIG reason that terrorism has become the prevalent threat that it is today.
You speak of Israel as this blameless victim, yet they’ve been responsible for more oppression and atrocities, more acts of war and violence, than almost any other Middle Eastern nation.
They’ve been systematically oppressing the Palestinian population almost from day one. They’ve ghettoized what they haven’t just taken over.
Multiple aggressive actions aimed at land grabbing over the course of their history.

All done with basic impunity because the US/west have backed them implicitly.

Seriously. Read a book, mister “u shud taek a collage corse GAWD!”

 
Flag Post

This is what I think.
The obligations put on to America should not be America’s alone…if the State of Israel is legal.
I personally think that Israel is not a legitamit country. While I don’t agree that there is a Zionist conspiracy, I believe that the Jewish infrastucture in the United States holds too much sway in politics.

So…in answer to my own question, I don’t think the United States has any obligations to Israel. I think the Hebrews that had lived there before would agree with me. They lived more peacfully with their neighbours than currently. I might be wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:
Originally posted by MyTie:

It’s not really a worst case scenario. It’s just what would happen if the US abandoned its allies. I don’t feel like going into what would happen if the US had no foreign policy for the middle east. Take a college class in political science.

If you had any vague understanding of history, you’d be aware that the very presence of Israel, since its re-settling post WWII, is kind of a BIG reason that terrorism has become the prevalent threat that it is today.
You speak of Israel as this blameless victim, yet they’ve been responsible for more oppression and atrocities, more acts of war and violence, than almost any other Middle Eastern nation.
They’ve been systematically oppressing the Palestinian population almost from day one. They’ve ghettoized what they haven’t just taken over.
Multiple aggressive actions aimed at land grabbing over the course of their history.

All done with basic impunity because the US/west have backed them implicitly.

Seriously. Read a book, mister “u shud taek a collage corse GAWD!”

lol no

The Palestinian people have done a great job opressing themselves. And, most importantly, I reject that terrorism is “because we asked for it”. That’s awful.

 
Flag Post

Israel has been the aggressor state for quite awhile now. It is also an apartheid state.

-Israel was founded by Zionist terrorists who liquidated Palestinian villages en masse to create a new Jewish state in 1948.
-Israel, Britain, and France invaded Egypt for the Suez Canal in 1956. (The United States under President Eisenhower at this time actually supported Egypt)
-In 1967, the six day war was started by Israel because of expansion. It gained the West Bank territory and Jerusalem from Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
-In 1973 this is the only time the Arab countries started a war with Israel to regain lost territories from 6 years ago and even then the armies stopped to regain their territories.
-In 1982, Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon and stayed their for decades until withdrawing in 2000.
-In 2009, the Gaza War occurred and left 1,400 Palestinians dead and 13 Israelis (4 of whom died from friendly fire) dead.
-In 2010, the Flotilla Raid happened and the IDF forces stormed a ship suspected of smuggling weapons and murdered dozens of humanitarian workers. No weapons were found on the ship only humanitarian aid supplies and medicine were found.

There are more acts of Israel’s aggression though these are the major ones.

 
Flag Post

DA rear
Hmmm, I wonder – WHY are there still an ENTITY called Palestine, IF Israel is so “territory-greedy and aggressive”?
It could take over the “territories” in between a day or a few weeks, depending on the amount of surviving Pals.
Somehow, nobody ever tried this.
(Nor is Israel the one to OPENLY profess HATRED towards its neighbor – as a “there can be only ONE left” AGENDA.)
Yes, you ARE an idiot.
(A brainwashed idiot, I’m not saying it’s YOUR fault you are such.)
Oh, and learning history ALWAYS helps, you know.

 
Flag Post

I’m not going as far as calling him an idiot. I just don’t get it, though, being biased against your allies, and in favor of people who want to kill you.

 
Flag Post

So basically they aren’t that evil because they left a bit of the people they conquered for the survivors to rot in How nice. (if you want to know how much http://www.romanoprodi.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/palestine.gif )
You should always be more critical of your allies then your enemies. Your enemies you are clearly working against so it doesn’t really matter what they do but the whole world will hold you partially responsible for the actions of your allies. Should China continue to support their North Korean allies? Their only allies in that specific region? We can paste almost all of MyTie’s argument straight into the China-North Korean argument. And yes it might be somewhat different but just because they are your allies doesn’t mean they are allowed to commit war crimes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

So basically they aren’t that evil because they left a bit of the people they conquered for the survivors to rot in How nice. (if you want to know how much http://www.romanoprodi.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/palestine.gif )
You should always be more critical of your allies then your enemies. Your enemies you are clearly working against so it doesn’t really matter what they do but the whole world will hold you partially responsible for the actions of your allies. Should China continue to support their North Korean allies? Their only allies in that specific region? We can paste almost all of MyTie’s argument straight into the China-North Korean argument. And yes it might be somewhat different but just because they are your allies doesn’t mean they are allowed to commit war crimes.

Isreal is like North Korea? Because Isreal is now on Palestinian land? Why not just say that Americans are on Native American land, and Brittish are on Saxon land, etc etc etc.

 
Flag Post

Your argument is that the US should be loyal to it’s ally I’m telling you that if you ally is mis behaving it might be best to consider either getting them to chance or rejecting them as an ally. And how many Native Americans have died in the last few years from wars against them?

 
Flag Post

Agreed, we should question the treatment of Palestinians from Isreal, but the vast majority of violence against Palestinians is from their own government, not Israeli government. Read about the history of Hamaas. It’s vile. I don’t think that everything that Isreal does is good, and pure, and I certainly don’t feel they should be excused from answering for wrongs because they are our ally, however, they are not NEARLY as oppressive to their people as the religious despots that surround them, nor are they calling for the genocide of entire nations, as Iran has. So, no, Isreal is not perfect, but relatively, to the surrounding nations, they are saints, and there is the overwhelmingly important point to me (and should be to you), that they don’t want us to die. That should be important, I would think.