I hope this is obvious to everybody.
U.S. Policy in the Mid-East is based on expanding access to global markets, resources and workforce. Capitalist “ideals” drive US aggression. Rationale for aggression thought equivocal by much of the World.
Sheeit, I have little hope for the salvage of much good from the massing of opposing forces.
Well, for one, I don’t believe this. Polls have revealed great dissatisfaction and hatred among young men for the systems under which they live. Saudi Arabia is increasingly impoverished because of the mismanagement of the ruling class. Iraq was a charnel house. Iran is run by a half-corrupt theocracy, desperately clinging to power amid increasing opposition. Syria and Egypt are just more dictatorship. The people who live in these regimes don’t like them; they have no choice. This si why dissaffected Saudis join Al Quaeda: it offers them power, hope, and an alternative.
But as to your other point, if we wanted new markets and sources, we could have had them easily and without bloodshed, for less. Saddam would have paid a lot for us to drop opposition to his regime. We could have had our market access. But on one level you are quite correct. By bringing these nations into a new era of prosperity - which we or they can only be achieved by liberalizing their societies - we will eliminate potential threats, terrorist and military, to ourselves in the future.
In other words, you begged the question “Is this a bad thing.” And it isn’t.
Well, for one, I don’t believe this. Polls have revealed great dissatisfaction and hatred among young men for the systems under which they live. Saudi Arabia is increasingly impoverished because of the mismanagement of the ruling class. Iraq was a charnel house. Iran is run by a half-corrupt theocracy, desperately clinging to power amid increasing opposition. Syria and Egypt are just more dictatorship. The people who live in these regimes don’t like them; they have no choice. This si why dissaffected Saudis join Al Quaeda: it offers them power, hope, and an alternative.
But as to your other point, if we wanted new markets and sources, we could have had them easily and without bloodshed, for less. Saddam would have paid a lot for us to drop opposition to his regime. We could have had our market access. But on one level you are quite correct. By bringing these nations into a new era of prosperity - which we or they can only be achieved by liberalizing their societies - we will eliminate potential threats, terrorist and military, to ourselves in the future.
In other words, you begged the question “Is this a bad thing?” And it isn’t.
You’re looking at the last two years and applying it the the entire course of twentieth century history.
U.S. policy in the Middle East is based on keeping the Jewish population back here happy. Everything in our Mid-east policy is negotiable, except for one thing: we will not withdraw support from Israel, because that will lose the party that does it every presidential election for the next twenty years.
There really are no markets to expand access to out there. Most of the ME is extremely sparsely populated, particularly the Arabian peninsula, and outside Israel there isn’t much in the way of non-oil industry.
If that is true, why? According to the CIA Factbook only 2% of Americans are jewish. I can’t see why people would be so (altruistic?) to vote in the best interests of a foreign power every election, rather than in the interests of their own national security, own bank balance, own personal beliefs/prejudices. It strikes me as more typical of human behaviour that people would prioritise things like low taxes, or having/not having a welfare state, or gun ownership, or abortion - long before they would care about a foreign power getting a significant cut in political, financial and military support.
I don’t think the majority of people in Iraq were satisfied with Saddam. There also seems to be a large portion of Iran that is increaseingly unsatisfied. Its rather hard to guage how satisfied people are when they don’t have the freedom to speak out without harm. There are larger workforces and markets to exploit in Asia. To my mind its all about oil and our dependence on it for the economy.
Much too simplistic. Yeah, America helps Israel largely out of the goodness of our hearts. Because we see them as brothers, even though it hurts us in other ways. And yeah, if one party screwed Israel they would die a swift, painful death at the polls.
2% of Americans are technically Jewish; as many as 9% have a strongly Jewish background. Plus Jews have a higher median income and are twice as likely to hold a degree. This makes them a lot more likely to vote.
Perhaps most importantly of all, American Jews tend to be heavily concentrated in states with a LOT of Electoral College clout- New York, Florida, and California.
Let the record show that I’m anything but anti-Semitic. It occurred to me that my posts in this thread might make it seem that way.
I do, however, think our support of Israel ought to be contingent on the willingness of Israelis to stop settling occupied territories. America can’t be a peacemaker as long as is kowtows to one side of the conflict.
As long as you back your assertions up with facts then I can’t see how what you’ve said here can be seen as anti-semitic. You might want to define that 9%
of the American population that has Jewish blood (or whatever–not really clear on what you were trying to say there), in other words.
Agreed. Alternatively, we could just wall the place off and let them get about the business of butchering each other to their hearts content. It seems like there are sizable minorities on each side that would love nothing better than to do just that and at this point I’m sick enough of the whole situation that I say ‘let them at it.’ Maybe after they’ve killed enough of each other they’ll realize how idiotic the whole thing is (but I’m not holding my breath).
The 2% figure refers to people who refer to themselves as Jewish. The “up to 9%” figure is an estimate of how many Americans are more than half Jewish by ancestry, whether or not they are practicing.
All those things may be true, but you’re neglecting one very important item: many of us are just as disgusted with curent U.S. policy in the Middle East as you are. I have a large extended Jewish family and a fair number of Jewish friends and acquaintances; we all vote (except my sister, but I suspect she was switched at birth anyway), and out of all those people I know exactly one who voted for the party in office or would do so again.
Doesn’t matter. Were the Democrats in power, things wouldn’t be any different. Clinton’s administration was at least as supportive of Israel as Bush’s. Besides, would you or your family vote for a candidate who said he’d withdraw support from Israel?
I’m not blaming the U.S. Jewish community, I’m blaming the parties.
It’s the pit and all, but I’d like a cite for that if’n ya have one. Seems very high to me.
You are correct.
A little research shows that I was way off… the highest estimates now top out at 3% (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-08-jewish-survey_x.htm)
The last time I checked I got a 20 million figure somewhere, but I’m not finding that.
You, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion both.
And I’m sure that some of your best friends are Jewish, too :rolleyes:
Dani
Given I went back to the U.S., I wouldn’t vote for a President who didn’t support Israel. Aside from the Christian faith…thing, it doesn’t sit well with me that the government would make deals with other Nations to let Jews go to a “safehaven”, and then not watch out for their safety until things have more or less settled down.
president…nations…
Oh, and some sort of secret code should be developed so threads like these can stay under Aldebaran’s radar.
Half of my fraternity is Jewish- will that do?
If you’d paid attention to anything I’ve posted in other threads you’d be quite clear that I’m anti-bigotry in any form.
Now- fuck off.
I didn’t mean a President who’d just go ahead and withdraw support from Israel, so much as make support contingent on changes in Israeli policy. Would that make a difference?