Looking ahead to a time in which the world is able to replace petroleum-based fuels with something else, what becomes of the Middle East? I predict that it will be of as little interest to the world, as sub-saharan Africa is today. Take the following:
-Egypt: is an economic disaster-overpopulated and saddled with a corrupt government.
-Syria: no oil, but plenty of sand.
-Jordan: a poor , resourceless country, whose major asset is that of a entryway into Saudi Arabia and Iraq. A big loser when the oil runs out.
-Saudi Arabia: the world’s biggest desert.
It looks like Israel would surpass all of these countries, since they have human capital that the others do not posess.
I think this is a bit of romantic idealization. Both SK and Taiwan alternated between democracy and dictatorship until the 80s. And the US was complicit in overthrowing democracies in Iran and Chile.
I think it’s more significant that they are ALLIES, as you put it. Of course, the US is going to support countries which declare themselves friendly to US interests, regardless of their governmental structure.
So, I’m in agreement with you that we support Israel because they’re an ally, but not necessarily because they’re a democracy.
Of course, we need to ask the question of are they an ally just in theory, but in practice as well? The current government in Israel strikes me as pursuing policies which are decidedly against our interests, and we should reexamine our relationship with them in that light.
Or, in other words, you stated a falsehood as fact. :rolleyes:
Clairobscur
Why wouldn’t the US want Israeli support in the Invasion of Iraq? Will it cause Iraqis and others to think it’s mostly about the security of Israel. Firstly, they think that anyway. Secondly it’s true. It merely appears instead that Israeli forces are too precious to risk. When US and allied forces are good enough to die and kill for Israel, why should Israelis?
Still I suppose positive public relations has its place and you are right. We couldn’t just expect the US to candidly state or imply the reasons for the invasion. Or at least not until it is over.
.
I’m asking you to back up the claims in the post I replied to so I can see how much of it you stick by. Then I’ll reply.
Charity starts at home and so do jobs and work, for a smart nation and then, we can afford to help others, but the US has it backwards and so shall we lose what we have.
I stated that the Arab defeat at the hands of the Israelis during the Six-Day War constituted a bitch-slapping and proved that the Israelis were not dependent upon the intervention of the United States should they ever need to defend themselves.
Read the figures for yourself:
Six-Day War
You then stated that US air support during that war was decisive; a claim that is utterly ridiculous. Hell, the Israelis attacked a US ship (USS Liberty) during that very same war.
So now we go from nonsense to weaseling and nonsense.
I quote your post in full:
So apparently you believed the only reason Israel is our ally is so that we can use Israeli troops in “the multinational force participating in the invasion of Iraq”. Of which there are none, and a thirty second Google was enough to prove that you have no basis in fact for your post.
And Israel shares no borders with Iraq, so it is also inaccurate to speak of her armed forces as “right next door”.
So, one instance of weaseling, sandwiched between two misstatements of fact. Care to try again?
Regards,
Shodan
A mixture of these two. I did go through a stage of wondering if Jewish media dominance in the US was the cause of such blind, undeserved, unyielding support for this oppressive, corrupt little country: then I came to my senses realising the average educated, fair-minded, intelligent Jewish person in the US is just as horrified as their average Gentile counterpart (if not the average Israeli) about the continued atrocities committed by Sharon’s regime.
Like nearly everything dictating US foreign policy at the moment: it’s a fusion of strong-arming and control-freaking massively ramped up by the fuckwit fundies. I only found out about the “rapture” thing recently: ironic to contrast this religious belief with that among ultra-orthodox jews who idealogically oppose Israel.
Once you merkins vote some common sense back into power, the future will be brighter for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Sure I’ll try again. My apologies to those dopers with comprehension skills, who got it the very first time. It was Irony Shodan. Although you are a shameless partisan, I hadn’t thought you lacking in intellect until now. Perhaps the 2 go together.
I believe old Shody is a big fan of the “we are allied with Israel because… they are our ally line.” Of course Israel has no troops in Iraq. That makes for a very special sort of ally doesn’t it now? The point was made earlier that the ally relationship only tends to apply in one direction. How many countries had the general population in support of the invasion 2, 3? The US Poland and Israel?
How many stood to benefit directly? One? Odd then, one might think that the principal beneficiary of the invasion did not consider it fit to venture the life of any of its much vaunted troops. Odder still while other troops were good enough to die and be killed for no direct benefit.
Words Shodan. Learn to use’em.
Kind regards
s
Actually you stated - most Arabs in the region - . Now I see references to Egypt, Jordan and Syria in your link. But no mention of Lebanon, or 2 other largish patches of earth nearby: Iraq and Saudi Arabia. And that’s without contemplating Turkey and Iran, not to mention the host of local tiddlers.
Now once we clear up how said omissions constitute a slapping bitch-style to these Arab nations then it’ll be my turn to clear up some stuff.
Actually, I wanted you to elaborate on both. I didn’t know about this sub, and didn’t get what you meant in the second part of your statement. Thanks.
With the irrational hatred of Israel and fear of world Jewish power in much of the Arab world, it’s not so odd that the US, which is and has been trying to win over the Iraqi people, chooses not to ask for troops from a country, if the presence of the Israeli troops are just going to piss off Iraqis even more than they’re pissed off now.
Posted by Captain Amazing
You’re absolutely right about hatred of Israel (although I think it isn’t necessarily all that irrational given the treatment of Palestinians) and the reaction of Israeli troops here.
The US Army painted a public building as part of a rennovation here and used what paint they had, blue and white (colors of the Israeli flag) and people went crazy with conspiracy theories that it was the beginning of the Israeli occupation.
If one Israeli soldier set foot in this country, every Jihadist in the Muslim world would be here the next day, each one wanting to make my head his own personal jack o’ lantern
Moderator’s Note: Sevastopol, cool it on the personal insults.
[/quote]
So, then as it seems Americans are becoming some of the most hated people in the world, its ok if our soldiers are killed and maimed, but not Israeli soldiers???
No, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that, as bad as the Iraqi resistance is now, with US troops in Iraq, that’s nothing compared to what it would be if Israel sent troops to Iraq. Israeli troops being there wouldn’t make the US/coalition/provisional authority’s life easier. It would make it harder.
Thanks Captain Amazing, that’s exactly what I was saying.
For the record, I was always opposed to this war (particularly in the way it was prosecuted) and still am. I’m an aid worker trying to build schools and deliver school supplies.
Getting back to the OP, I have yet to see a compelling reason why the US/Israeli alliance is the one alliance we seem to accept without question.
Saying they are our allies and a democracy don’t answer why we put such a stake into the relationship and why we don’t look at that alliance and what we get out of it. After all, France has been our historic ally and is a democracy, but many Americans don’t seem to have a problem to criticize France and ask the big questions about that relationship
I would ask if you really know who controlls our media and how can you best explain it? I will explain what I see, once you answer. By the way, you logic is sound, IF, you do not consider other things.
I think there are a few reasons. One of the big ones, though, is that there’s a decent sized and well organized pro-Israel lobby, and not much of an anti-Israel lobby. I could go into more detail if you wanted, but basically, keeping Israel as an ally makes good sense from a domestic political standpoint.
Also, as far as allies go, Israel isn’t a bad one to have. They don’t do too much “showboating”, so to speak, and generally, if we ask them to do something, they’ll do it. Plus, Mossad has more agents “on the ground” in the Middle East than we do, and so they’re a good source for intel. It’s also not like we’re blind allies of Israel. We’ve criticized them in the past, and they’ve criticized us in the past.
A third reason is that, during the Cold War, the Soviets gave a lot of aid to Israel’s neighbors, which led us to increase our support of them and deepen our alliance as a way to block the Soviets. While the Cold War’s over now, those ties remain.
The media is really controlled by a number of large conglomerates. Here’s a list, from the Columbia Journalism Review, listing the major media owners and what they own.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
I can explain it by saying that building a successful newspaper, radio, TV station, or magazine is a pretty expensive thing to do. The large companies have more ability to “nurture” a station or paper that’s losing money, giving it the time to build up its readership and advertising. Also, relaxed ownership rules and a general “free market” orientation at the current FCC has made it easier for a company to get new broadcast stations.