Obama: "I have Israel's back" (1 Viewer)

[Tickle Monster]

1. Tim, Israel is a global military power. 2. They could wipe out two or three of their neighbors without breaking a sweat. 3. Arab hate: you can play chicken or the egg with this of you want. But the fact remains we have supported Israel and we have supplied them with their military and the people who bomb us say that's why. You can say thu would just find another reason or attribute that to other things but it's just conjecture. 4. Israel's moral fiber: this is total opinion, but I would say they are closer to their neighbors than they are to us when it comes to valuing the rule of law and respecting international law. However the last decade has brought us closer to Israel, muhch to our moral detriment. 5. The torture we committed at Abu ghraib was straight out of an Israeli playbook. Bush's hatchet men were all about learning the best ways to humiliate and degrade Arabs. Until you at least acknowledge that Israel's military power provides it with an almost unassailable position in terms of all out war, it's impossible to take you seriously on this subject. Your bias is blinding you.

1. No it isn't.2. No they couldn't.3. Sorry I disagree with you.4. Sorry I STRONGLY disagree with you.5. Sorry I STRONGLY disagree with you. Guess we just disagree.

Can we agree that outside of Israel, Iran has the largest military in the Middle East (guess that ignores the American military as well)?With 1/10 the population of Iran, Israel possesses twice as many tanks, twice as many military airplanes, 3/4 the number of active duty troops and nuclear weapons. Israel has about 3 times the number of active duty soldiers than Syria and probably 4 times the number of military aircraft. Israel also holds a decided technological advantage over Syria and Iran, the two leading Muslim powers in the ME. Israel has blocked the Russian sale of Aircraft to its Muslim neighbors.

lol. Israel would decimate any and all opponents, with the exemption of the U.S., Russia or China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

[jon_mx]

What always amazes me is Obama's constant use of the word "I" and why no one calls him on it. Extremely arrogant. He saved the economy. He got OBL. He has Israel's back.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I'm starting to root for Iran. Americans love an underdog.

Israel is surounded by enemies who outnumber it in population 50-1, in wealth and land by an even larger margin. Israel has always been the "underdog" in it's entire history and remains so today.

You mean aside from military strength and technology, you know that stuff that counts when war is declared.

Despite that, they are still the underdog. You know why? Because they cannot afford to lose a war. Nearly any nation on Earth, if they lose a war, would face a lot of terrible hardships, the death of some of its population, the forced removal of its government, etc. If Israel ever loses a war they face complete and total annihilation of it's citizenry.

Damn dude you cannot believe that seriously.

He's been indoctrinated, leave him alone.

How The Lobby indoctinates

Link of the year!!!I welcome all of you to take a gander!

Hah. I used to blog about AIPAC all the time back when I cared about such things. I LOVE THE LOBBBY. The way they do business, the organization, the forward thinking and message control, the broad scope, and the smallest details. It's breathtaking. No lobby, not Big Oil, Big Ag or Big Bank, comes close. Good thing the guy posting that video called it brainwashing and veiled it in tin foil. Had he considered it a training video for other lobbies, then we'd have a bigger problem.In Israel, where AIPAC is marginalized, the mainstream media can openly say what no major news outlet in the US dare mention in secret meetings.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

I'm starting to root for Iran. Americans love an underdog.

Israel is surounded by enemies who outnumber it in population 50-1, in wealth and land by an even larger margin. Israel has always been the "underdog" in it's entire history and remains so today.

You mean aside from military strength and technology, you know that stuff that counts when war is declared.

Despite that, they are still the underdog. You know why? Because they cannot afford to lose a war. Nearly any nation on Earth, if they lose a war, would face a lot of terrible hardships, the death of some of its population, the forced removal of its government, etc. If Israel ever loses a war they face complete and total annihilation of it's citizenry.

Damn dude you cannot believe that seriously.

He's been indoctrinated, leave him alone.

How The Lobby indoctinates

So, has anyone watched the video? Tim?I really love how they use the word "Cultivate".

 

[guderian]

What always amazes me is Obama's constant use of the word "I" and why no one calls him on it. Extremely arrogant. He saved the economy. He got OBL. He has Israel's back.

His term began with "This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

 

[Clifford]

For now, Obama may be unable to prohibit Israel from a military adventure in Iran without offering serious quid pro quo. After all, we are talking about the prime minister of Israel. But one day the rope could snap and the whole thing could blow up in the face of power-drunk Israel: Israel doesn't know when to stop, and it could pay dearly as a result.

Well put.

 

[The Commish]

What does this really mean though?

Means a lot more of our tax dollars spent unfortunately

 

[The Commish]

I'm starting to root for Iran. Americans love an underdog.

Israel is surounded by enemies who outnumber it in population 50-1, in wealth and land by an even larger margin. Israel has always been the "underdog" in it's entire history and remains so today.

You mean aside from military strength and technology, you know that stuff that counts when war is declared.

Despite that, they are still the underdog. You know why? Because they cannot afford to lose a war. Nearly any nation on Earth, if they lose a war, would face a lot of terrible hardships, the death of some of its population, the forced removal of its government, etc. If Israel ever loses a war they face complete and total annihilation of it's citizenry.

oh boy....here we go

 

[17seconds]

What always amazes me is Obama's constant use of the word "I" and why no one calls him on it. Extremely arrogant. He saved the economy. He got OBL. He has Israel's back.

Do you have links to the "I" quotes on the economy and OBL?The right tends to attack him personally. He's not legally qualified to be president, he's a socialist, he's a muslim, he lies in his state of the union, he's weak on the middle east. Under those conditions, I don't think it's arrogant to use the word "I" occasionally.

 

[Slapdash]

Can we agree that outside of Israel, Iran has the largest military in the Middle East (guess that ignores the American military as well)?With 1/10 the population of Iran, Israel possesses twice as many tanks, twice as many military airplanes, 3/4 the number of active duty troops and nuclear weapons. Israel has about 3 times the number of active duty soldiers than Syria and probably 4 times the number of military aircraft. Israel also holds a decided technological advantage over Syria and Iran, the two leading Muslim powers in the ME. Israel has blocked the Russian sale of Aircraft to its Muslim neighbors.

If Israel wants another war then they can handle it and the consequences themselves. Obama shouldn't support them on their foolish decisions.

 

[ren hoek]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

 

[Slapdash]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

It is a good policy if your goal is to eventually go to war. Just like the economic sanctions in place.

 

[ren hoek]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

It is a good policy if your goal is to eventually go to war. Just like the economic sanctions in place.

I wonder if people would think any differently of Iran getting nukes if they used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

It is a good policy if your goal is to eventually go to war. Just like the economic sanctions in place.

I wonder if people would think any differently of Iran getting nukes if they used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

That won't work again. With 9/11 we were caught offguard and the populace was easily manipulated.What I am interested in seeing is, if the US tells Israel to handle it themselves, do we, the US, get another terrorist action on our soil, with breadcrumbs leading to Iran, forcing us to go save Israel. If this happens then I have to think that some of those 9/11 conspiracy folks were right when they said that Israel was behind 9/11 all along.

 

[SofaKings]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

It is a good policy if your goal is to eventually go to war. Just like the economic sanctions in place.

I wonder if people would think any differently of Iran getting nukes if they used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

That won't work again. With 9/11 we were caught offguard and the populace was easily manipulated.What I am interested in seeing is, if the US tells Israel to handle it themselves, do we, the US, get another terrorist action on our soil, with breadcrumbs leading to Iran, forcing us to go save Israel. If this happens then I have to think that some of those 9/11 conspiracy folks were right when they said that Israel was behind 9/11 all along.

Man, how do you people get up in the morning? Conspiracy theories central in this thread.

 

[Chaos Commish]

What I am interested in seeing is, if the US tells Israel to handle it themselves, do we, the US, get another terrorist action on our soil, with breadcrumbs leading to Iran, forcing us to go save Israel. If this happens then I have to think that some of those 9/11 conspiracy folks were right when they said that Israel was behind 9/11 all along.

Saying "Israel" is a lot like saying "The Jews". It's pretty easy to defend an accusation of anti-Israel or Zion with one and Anti-Semitism with the other. So it helps a conversation continue if you better qualify what you mean. I hope you don't think the Israeli government acted in unison behind 9-11. That's beyond crazy. If you suspect a neocon plan somehow manipulated a fragmented Islamic terrorist cell; and some far right war-mongering Israeli nutjobs were part of the small enough number in the know for a conspiracy to make any sense at all; then that's not beyond crazy; it's just crazy.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Man, how do you people get up in the morning? Conspiracy theories central in this thread.

Sooo, how long have you been with AIPAC?

 

[Slapdash]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

It is a good policy if your goal is to eventually go to war. Just like the economic sanctions in place.

I wonder if people would think any differently of Iran getting nukes if they used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

"Iran must be where Saddam hid all of his!"

 

[SofaKings]

Man, how do you people get up in the morning? Conspiracy theories central in this thread.

Sooo, how long have you been with AIPAC?

I saw an ad in a magazine once. Does that count?

 

[timschochet]

I'm starting to root for Iran. Americans love an underdog.

Israel is surounded by enemies who outnumber it in population 50-1, in wealth and land by an even larger margin. Israel has always been the "underdog" in it's entire history and remains so today.

You mean aside from military strength and technology, you know that stuff that counts when war is declared.

Despite that, they are still the underdog. You know why? Because they cannot afford to lose a war. Nearly any nation on Earth, if they lose a war, would face a lot of terrible hardships, the death of some of its population, the forced removal of its government, etc. If Israel ever loses a war they face complete and total annihilation of it's citizenry.

Damn dude you cannot believe that seriously.

He's been indoctrinated, leave him alone.

How The Lobby indoctinates

So, has anyone watched the video? Tim?I really love how they use the word "Cultivate".

I haven't watched this particular video. I've seen plenty and read plenty of this sort of thing in the past. IMO, it's a bunch of crap. AIPAC is an effective lobby; not nearly as effective, though, as the other lobby groups that Chaos Commish mentions, because they don't need to be. The vast majority of Americans, as well as the vast majority of politicians in both parties, support our friendship with Israel, as well they should. AIPAC helps this out, but has no real impact on that friendship. AIPAC doesn't indoctrinate anyone.

 

[timschochet]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

 

[The Commish]

I've never seen much in way of your beliefs. Seems like you MO is to post both sides to an issue and ask the crowd what they think. The only thing I've ever been able to nail you down on is that you really, really like Israel.

So people have already called you out on Israel being underdogs, a truly laughable notion for obvious reasons that have already been posted.

You then roll out the (a) it is in our interests to do so and (b) because we share a similar moral outlook

Both matters of opinion I know many disagree with including myself. On B, I really can't see our country tolerating a government worker mowing down a student kneeling in protest with a bulldozer. That type of crap would not fly here, but did in Israel. I also can't see this country supporting a border policy that makes the immigration laws in Alabama and Arizona look like jokes.

On A), another matter of opinion with strong feelings on both sides, and in no way a given as it is presented here. I have asked in previous threads for a concise explanation of the benefits America reaps as a result of our relationship, and I think when the negative is the unwavering hatred of the entire Arab world, you'd need some pretty obvious and discernible benefits to outweigh that, given decades of terrorism addressed at the US where Israel and our support thereof is cited as the direct cause of the attack.

So when you post things like that as if they were matter of national consent it feels like a fishing trip. Surely you know Americans are deeply divided on the unconditional support of Israel and the benefits we reap from the relationship.

Were these benefits ever given?

 

[timschochet]

What always amazes me is Obama's constant use of the word "I" and why no one calls him on it. Extremely arrogant. He saved the economy. He got OBL. He has Israel's back.

the reason that Obama has used the word "I" is because of the conservative lie that Obama is not as friendly to Israel as previous Presidents.

 

[tommyboy]

lots of anti Semitism in this thread. Reminds me of Borat talking about the shapeshifting cockroaches

 

[timschochet]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

 

[timschochet]

lots of anti Semitism in this thread. Reminds me of Borat talking about the shapeshifting cockroaches

I think I'm pretty sensitive to anti-Semitism. I don't see any in this thread. I have strong disagreements with several of the posters, but none have displayed any anti-Semitism that I can determine.

 

[Clifford]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

 

[Slapdash]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever. I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

Tim, do you think our policy of harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people helps or hurts our efforts to prevent their government from getting a nuclear weapon?

 

[timschochet]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

Please stop calling me "blinded" on this issue. It implies that I don't understand what I am talking about, and that's rather insulting. Obviously you and I strongly disagree. I don't regard you as blinded. I don't think you are correct, but that's not the same as calling you ignorant.As regards benefits: I have addressed this subject again and again. I could, if I wanted to, list a whole host of strategic, technological, and economic benefits that the USA receives from our friendship with Israel. But I won't, because I believe our friendship goes deeper than these issues: we have a moral alliance with Israel- like us, like Great Britain, they are the good guys.

 

[timschochet]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever. I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

Tim, do you think our policy of harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people helps or hurts our efforts to prevent their government from getting a nuclear weapon?

Good question. I don't know. I'd like to think so. I'm not sure, though.

 

[The Commish]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

Please stop calling me "blinded" on this issue. It implies that I don't understand what I am talking about, and that's rather insulting. Obviously you and I strongly disagree. I don't regard you as blinded. I don't think you are correct, but that's not the same as calling you ignorant.As regards benefits: I have addressed this subject again and again. I could, if I wanted to, list a whole host of strategic, technological, and economic benefits that the USA receives from our friendship with Israel. But I won't, because I believe our friendship goes deeper than these issues: we have a moral alliance with Israel- like us, like Great Britain, they are the good guys.

How about a severe case of tunnel vision?

 

[timschochet]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

Please stop calling me "blinded" on this issue. It implies that I don't understand what I am talking about, and that's rather insulting. Obviously you and I strongly disagree. I don't regard you as blinded. I don't think you are correct, but that's not the same as calling you ignorant.As regards benefits: I have addressed this subject again and again. I could, if I wanted to, list a whole host of strategic, technological, and economic benefits that the USA receives from our friendship with Israel. But I won't, because I believe our friendship goes deeper than these issues: we have a moral alliance with Israel- like us, like Great Britain, they are the good guys.

How about a severe case of tunnel vision?

Obviously I don't think so. That would still impy that there is a "bigger picture" which I'm either ignorant of, or refuse to consider. I don't regard either statement to be true.

 

[Clifford]

When I say blinded I am not saying you are ignorant on this subject in any way. I would bet your knowledge dwarfs mine by a factor of thousands. What I am saying is that you clearly have no objectivity and this comes through in your statements:

Israel is an underdog in the region

Israel are the "good guys"

Israel clearly has the overwhelming support of the American public

These just aren't representative of reality. Most people do not view this situation in such black and white terms.

Also, your refusal to list any benefits isn't helping credibility on the benefits. There are probably many I have not considered. I am not aware to the degree that Israel's CIA equivalent helps us find and deal with terror cells. I am not looking to discredit the benefits. I just want to know what they are.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

What I am interested in seeing is, if the US tells Israel to handle it themselves, do we, the US, get another terrorist action on our soil, with breadcrumbs leading to Iran, forcing us to go save Israel. If this happens then I have to think that some of those 9/11 conspiracy folks were right when they said that Israel was behind 9/11 all along.

Saying "Israel" is a lot like saying "The Jews". It's pretty easy to defend an accusation of anti-Israel or Zion with one and Anti-Semitism with the other. So it helps a conversation continue if you better qualify what you mean. I hope you don't think the Israeli government acted in unison behind 9-11. That's beyond crazy. If you suspect a neocon plan somehow manipulated a fragmented Islamic terrorist cell; and some far right war-mongering Israeli nutjobs were part of the small enough number in the know for a conspiracy to make any sense at all; then that's not beyond crazy; it's just crazy.

I don't think that Israel was behind 9/11. What I said was, if Israel gets into a tussle with Iran and the US says 'you're on your own' and THEN we have a terrorist event on our soil, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that the tail is in in fact trying to wag the dog. I'm not saying they would do it but if it goes down that way THEN I'm saying 'hey maybe those 9/11 conspiricists/nutjobs who think that Israel was behind it may have a point." A lot of #### has to happen for those two bridges to connect however.

 

[timschochet]

When I say blinded I am not saying you are ignorant on this subject in any way. I would bet your knowledge dwarfs mine by a factor of thousands. What I am saying is that you clearly have no objectivity and this comes through in your statements:Israel is an underdog in the regionIsrael are the "good guys"Israel clearly has the overwhelming support of the American publicThese just aren't representative of reality. Most people do not view this situation in such black and white terms.Also, your refusal to list any benefits isn't helping credibility on the benefits. There are probably many I have not considered. I am not aware to the degree that Israel's CIA equivalent helps us find and deal with terror cells. I am not looking to discredit the benefits. I just want to know what they are.

First off, you are correct, I am not objective, as you put it, on this issue. I have studied the situation, learned what I can about it, and made a decision as to where I stand. The minute that I do this on any issue, I lose my objectivity. But only to a certain extent. If I learn new information which contradicts what I know that may cause me to change my opinion. Also, if Israel were to become a bad nation rather than a good one I would change my mind about them. As far as "black and white" goes, it depends on your interpretation. I am highly critical of Israel for certain specific actions, but I don't think those actions are representative of Israel as a whole entity. To me, that's a nuanced position. I think that those who point to actions by the Israeli government and use those as proof of the evils of Zionism are much more guilty of a black and white viewpoint than I am.You're quite welcome to google "American benefits from friendship with Israel" and see what you get. As I wrote, there is plenty of technological, strategic, and economic benefits. I regard them as peripheral to my argument.

 

[Slapdash]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever. I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

Tim, do you think our policy of harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people helps or hurts our efforts to prevent their government from getting a nuclear weapon?

Good question. I don't know. I'd like to think so. I'm not sure, though.

Most of the reporting I've heard suggests that it is having the opposite impact. It is increasing support for the government's policies and increasing resentment of the US. I am of the opinion that the best way to ensure peace is to work to have open trade and relations with other countries. Building economic co-dependency facilitates cultural exchange and understanding as well as improves the lives of citizens in both nations. Although the process may be slow, I think it helps lead to greater democracy and freedom in the target nations. Given how strong of an advocate you are for free trade and free markets more generally, it always surprises me to read that you don’t feel the same way for foreign affairs.

 

[timschochet]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever. I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

Tim, do you think our policy of harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people helps or hurts our efforts to prevent their government from getting a nuclear weapon?

Good question. I don't know. I'd like to think so. I'm not sure, though.

Most of the reporting I've heard suggests that it is having the opposite impact. It is increasing support for the government's policies and increasing resentment of the US. I am of the opinion that the best way to ensure peace is to work to have open trade and relations with other countries. Building economic co-dependency facilitates cultural exchange and understanding as well as improves the lives of citizens in both nations. Although the process may be slow, I think it helps lead to greater democracy and freedom in the target nations. Given how strong of an advocate you are for free trade and free markets more generally, it always surprises me to read that you don't feel the same way for foreign affairs.

In general I agree with you. I certainly agree in terms of Cuba, China, and Venezuela, to mention 3 examples that are constantly being debated.However, there are exceptions to every rule. The exceptions don't necessarily weaken the rule. It wasn't a good idea, for instance, for America to trade with Nazi Germany. We did so, to our detriment. It WAS a good idea to boycott South Africa. When we finally got around to doing it, it helped end Apartheid. I tend to believe that our economic boycott of Iran is a good thing, not necessarily because it helps us with the nuclear issue, but because it may help bring about the day when the regime there is overthrown. That is something that I believe would be beneficial to us and the world. However, I need to temporize my view about this to state that I am not 100% sure I am correct about the boycott. It's the way I lean, but I don't write this with any kind of moral assurance.

 

[The Commish]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

Please stop calling me "blinded" on this issue. It implies that I don't understand what I am talking about, and that's rather insulting. Obviously you and I strongly disagree. I don't regard you as blinded. I don't think you are correct, but that's not the same as calling you ignorant.As regards benefits: I have addressed this subject again and again. I could, if I wanted to, list a whole host of strategic, technological, and economic benefits that the USA receives from our friendship with Israel. But I won't, because I believe our friendship goes deeper than these issues: we have a moral alliance with Israel- like us, like Great Britain, they are the good guys.

How about a severe case of tunnel vision?

Obviously I don't think so. That would still impy that there is a "bigger picture" which I'm either ignorant of, or refuse to consider. I don't regard either statement to be true.

You are quick to dismiss a lot after quick consideration. I don't think there is a question in that. You've made that clear here.

 

[Slapdash]

So far as I can see, I am the only person in this thread who supports Obama's statements and actions regarding Israel. Conservatives posting here tend to support Israel, but are extremely skeptical of Obama's veracity and motives on the subject. Progressives, independents, and libertarians (at least the ones posting here) are either openly anti-Israel, believe that we should have a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel and her adversaries, or believe that the USA shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

I think Obama is a strong friend of Israel, a much better friend than George W. Bush, and I approve of his statements and actions on this subject over the last 3 years. This seems to be a unique opinion. Is there anyone reading this that agrees with me?

Tim, do you think our policy of harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people helps or hurts our efforts to prevent their government from getting a nuclear weapon?

Good question. I don't know. I'd like to think so. I'm not sure, though.

Most of the reporting I've heard suggests that it is having the opposite impact. It is increasing support for the government's policies and increasing resentment of the US. I am of the opinion that the best way to ensure peace is to work to have open trade and relations with other countries. Building economic co-dependency facilitates cultural exchange and understanding as well as improves the lives of citizens in both nations. Although the process may be slow, I think it helps lead to greater democracy and freedom in the target nations. Given how strong of an advocate you are for free trade and free markets more generally, it always surprises me to read that you don't feel the same way for foreign affairs.

In general I agree with you. I certainly agree in terms of Cuba, China, and Venezuela, to mention 3 examples that are constantly being debated.However, there are exceptions to every rule. The exceptions don't necessarily weaken the rule. It wasn't a good idea, for instance, for America to trade with Nazi Germany. We did so, to our detriment. It WAS a good idea to boycott South Africa. When we finally got around to doing it, it helped end Apartheid. I tend to believe that our economic boycott of Iran is a good thing, not necessarily because it helps us with the nuclear issue, but because it may help bring about the day when the regime there is overthrown. That is something that I believe would be beneficial to us and the world. However, I need to temporize my view about this to state that I am not 100% sure I am correct about the boycott. It's the way I lean, but I don't write this with any kind of moral assurance.

The reporting on NPR from Tehran I've heard has made it seem like it is having the opposite effect. Probably biased, but every media report on Iran is. When you look at our experience with countries like Cuba I'm not sure how you could conclude that. Anyways, was just curious of your thoughts in this vein.

 

[Clifford]

When I say blinded I am not saying you are ignorant on this subject in any way. I would bet your knowledge dwarfs mine by a factor of thousands. What I am saying is that you clearly have no objectivity and this comes through in your statements:

Israel is an underdog in the region

Israel are the "good guys"

Israel clearly has the overwhelming support of the American public

These just aren't representative of reality. Most people do not view this situation in such black and white terms.

Also, your refusal to list any benefits isn't helping credibility on the benefits. There are probably many I have not considered. I am not aware to the degree that Israel's CIA equivalent helps us find and deal with terror cells. I am not looking to discredit the benefits. I just want to know what they are.

First off, you are correct, I am not objective, as you put it, on this issue. I have studied the situation, learned what I can about it, and made a decision as to where I stand. The minute that I do this on any issue, I lose my objectivity. But only to a certain extent. If I learn new information which contradicts what I know that may cause me to change my opinion. Also, if Israel were to become a bad nation rather than a good one I would change my mind about them. As far as "black and white" goes, it depends on your interpretation. I am highly critical of Israel for certain specific actions, but I don't think those actions are representative of Israel as a whole entity. To me, that's a nuanced position. I think that those who point to actions by the Israeli government and use those as proof of the evils of Zionism are much more guilty of a black and white viewpoint than I am.

You're quite welcome to google "American benefits from friendship with Israel" and see what you get. As I wrote, there is plenty of technological, strategic, and economic benefits. I regard them as peripheral to my argument.

I agree here that the actions of the government are not a reflection of the people in a direct way. I certainly don't want people thinking I am aligned with all the actions of my government. However we are talking about one government's relationship to another in this thread, not how we feel about each other as a people. I don't have anything against Israelis at all.Just want to make that clear: we are talking about our government's relationship to their government.

To be honest I don't want to weed through the crap that would bring up on Google.

 

[SofaKings]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

Good guys and bad guys? I don't think bias is a strong enough word to really represent how blinded you are on this issue.And to The Commish, no, no one has ever answered the benefit question, because there are no discernible benefits unless you want to get into the benefit of having a friendly base in the mideast in case WW3 starts. Of course, it looks like Israel is intent on starting it so that calls into question whether that alliance is a benefit at all, since we wouldn't need the friendly base in the first place without Israel.Tim, do you really consider 60% an overwhelming majority? And that number is couched in the "who do you support in the Palestinian conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, or neither.I bet if you took a poll and asked whether our relationship with Israel hurts the US, helps the US, or has no effect, you would not get 60% saying it helps. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.The people I talk to, gentile and Jewish alike, are deeply divided on our support for Israel and how much it works in our interests.

The benefit is that it is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

 

[ren hoek]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

Further arming Israel and occupying the Middle East is a laughable peace strategy. It's not unlike settling an argument between two neighbors by giving weapons to one and invading the other's house. I think Israel goes pretty far out of its way to wrap itself in the Jewish race and victimhood of the Holocaust, which makes it hard to fairly criticize it without being painted as an anti-Semite. I would like to see peace in the Middle East and think our current policy is awful to that end. As per usual, looks like we're headed for yet another war with a Muslim country.

 

[dickey moe]

Obama gave a long speech at AIPAC supporting Israel- "I have Israel's back!" He repeated it today in a meeting with Netanyahu. Netanyahu said Israel would do what it needs to do to maintain its security. Does this mean war? Bombing of Iran? I don't know, but I'm still skeptical. I think this is a lot of tough talk. But we'll see.Obama has proven to be a great friend of Israel, and I'm very happy about this.

If Israel and the US went to war which would you support?

Canada

 

[ren hoek]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

I really think you could make the case that part of the reason Iran is so radical now is due to the CIA forcing an overthrow of their democratically elected leader in 1953. It let to a brutal dictator being installed in his stead and an uprising that led to its current regime. It's part of the reason I facepalm whenever politicians sing and dance about how important democracy is in the Middle East.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

I really think you could make the case that part of the reason Iran is so radical now is due to the CIA forcing an overthrow of their democratically elected leader in 1953. It let to a brutal dictator being installed in his stead and an uprising that led to its current regime. It's part of the reason I facepalm whenever politicians sing and dance about how important democracy is in the Middle East.

Every single Iranian person I've ever known has said the exact same thing Ren.

 

[SofaKings]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

I really think you could make the case that part of the reason Iran is so radical now is due to the CIA forcing an overthrow of their democratically elected leader in 1953. It let to a brutal dictator being installed in his stead and an uprising that led to its current regime. It's part of the reason I facepalm whenever politicians sing and dance about how important democracy is in the Middle East.

Every single Iranian person I've ever known has said the exact same thing Ren.

Every single Iranian person I've ever known fled to the US with the rise of the crazy Ayatollah's. They love it here.

 

[ren hoek]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

I really think you could make the case that part of the reason Iran is so radical now is due to the CIA forcing an overthrow of their democratically elected leader in 1953. It let to a brutal dictator being installed in his stead and an uprising that led to its current regime. It's part of the reason I facepalm whenever politicians sing and dance about how important democracy is in the Middle East.

Every single Iranian person I've ever known has said the exact same thing Ren.

Just a terrible, terrible foreign policy.

 

[timschochet]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

So as usual, Ren, you need to stop parroting Ron Paul's rhetoric on this issue. It's uninformed and simply wrong, and is about as far removed from reality as could be. Which is one reason why Ron Paul is such a nutjob.

 

[timschochet]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

Further arming Israel and occupying the Middle East is a laughable peace strategy. It's not unlike settling an argument between two neighbors by giving weapons to one and invading the other's house. I think Israel goes pretty far out of its way to wrap itself in the Jewish race and victimhood of the Holocaust, which makes it hard to fairly criticize it without being painted as an anti-Semite. I would like to see peace in the Middle East and think our current policy is awful to that end. As per usual, looks like we're headed for yet another war with a Muslim country.

If you (or Ron Paul) ever truly bothered to study the treatment of Palestinians (there is no Palestine) by her Arab "brothers", you would not make this uninformed, extremely incorrect commentary. The story of the Palestinian people since 1948 is both complicated and tragic, and Israel bears a certain share of the guilt, but nowhere near the largest share. That belongs to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. With regard to your second paragraph, I agree with you partially. I do think the "anti-Semite" claim is used far too much against honest critics of Israel. And like you, I also would like to see peace in the Middle East (who wouldn't?) but I don't think that Obama's policy is awful. George W. Bush's policy was awful.

 

[pantherclub]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

why are they the good guys? that really doesnt make sense.