NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush said this at his convention:

“We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail."

Freedom. What a joke. Never freedom for the millions of Palestinians dispossessed and repressed by the Israelis. No freedom for the Saudi people, because the Saudis produce so much of the oil we need.

Bush’s version of freedom in the region is ensuring that no regime that might be a threat to Israel - such as Iran’s - is allowed to survive. If he wins the election, it’ll likely be Iran’s turn next. And American lives will be lost to ensure that Israel can continue to repress and murder Palestinians with impunity.

How did the pro-Israel lobby ever get so much power in the GOP? How did the neocons manage to make Israel basically our number one foreign policy concern?

The Democrats aren’t much different of course. But just think about how much goodwill we could create in the Muslim world if we withdrew all economic, military, and moral support for Israel, and let it sink or swim by itself. Our near-unconditional support for the Jewish state is the number one cause of anti-American hatred in the middle east.

One good reason I can see to vote for Kerry is that he’ll likely pull us out of Iraq sooner than Bush, and he won’t involve us in a war with Iran. And maybe, just maybe, we won’t be quite so subservient to Israeli interests.

Look how America messed up in Iraq, a weak and powerless country. The same applies for Afghanistan. If you think there was any possibility that America could go agains Iran, you must be ignoring the realities on the ground. Iran is a stable and strong and rich country. And there is no way of any military attempt against this country to succeed.

BTW it is funny to see how the US supportet the Shah and his clique of slaughterers and then was appalled when the Iranians removed the US-friendly despot from power. And the main reason for US differences with Iran is still the fact that US and British oil companies were expelled from the country after the islamic revolution.

Whoa, deja vú!

Bush said this at his convention:

“We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail."

Freedom. What a joke. Never freedom for the millions of Palestinians dispossessed and repressed by the Israelis. No freedom for the Saudi people, because the Saudis produce so much of the oil we need.

Bush’s version of freedom in the region is ensuring that no regime that might be a threat to Israel - such as Iran’s - is allowed to survive.

The fact that Iran is a threat to Israel, one of America's allies, will likely be one of the reasons it shows up on the US' radar. Another one might be its political repression, then its religious discrimination, then human rights violations, etc...

What about "freedom" for the Iranians? :rolleyes:

If he wins the election, it’ll likely be Iran’s turn next. And American lives will be lost to ensure that Israel can continue to repress and murder Palestinians with impunity.

So hang on, you're saying that anyone we attack in the region will be because of Israel? Not tpo oversimplistic, are we?

How did the pro-Israel lobby ever get so much power in the GOP?

Mainly from the dramatic rise in the political and voting power of evangelicals, who are often more right-wing when it comes to Israel than many Jews.

How did the neocons manage to make Israel basically our number one foreign policy concern?

I'm unconvinced that's true.

The Democrats aren’t much different of course. But just think about how much goodwill we could create in the Muslim world if we withdrew all economic, military, and moral support for Israel, and let it sink or swim by itself.

Why? How is that justified? Under what grounds should we withdraw all support, particularly "moral" for Israel? Exactly what is "moral" about leaving an ally to fend for itself against its enemies?

Our near-unconditional support for the Jewish state is the number one cause of anti-American hatred in the middle east.

Prove it.

You do relize that with all of the oil income of the Muslim countries in the middle east, and the vast land, without much overpopulation, they could afford to give every Palestinain their own land, and a bar of gold. They simply dont because they want to use the Palestinians as their tool to get rid of the Jewish presence in the Middle East.

If anything, the US depends on the Saudis for their oil, not the other way around. Of course the Saudis need our money, so it is a mutual thing.

Why is it that the Isrealites are murderers when they kill mostly armed terriosts, but when the Palestinain terriosts blow up themselves along with civilains, especially women and children, they are considered heroes by the democrats? Why is that?

Why is it that the Isrealites are murderers when they kill mostly armed terriosts, but when the Palestinain terriosts blow up themselves along with civilains, especially women and children, they are considered heroes by the democrats? Why is that?

To be fair, that is not the stance of most Democrats, anymore than it is the stance of most Republicans that Jews are "Christ-killers".

I doubt our support for Israel is the #1 reason for anti-Americanism in the Middle East. The #1 reason is because of the Cold War, which beat up the Middle East a lot. Israel existed because the US needed a firm foothold in the region at the time, and while it isn't the only reason, it's part of the equation. Notice how former Soviet republics are not immune, but are, in fact, more vulnerable than the US. It is why we can't falter, but must work together. Of course, I'd love it if Israel stayed to the West Bank and Gaza strip in the GWOT. They should leave the Middle East to us, because America isn't automatically hated. In fact, in the sixties, many had a favorable opinion. 42% of all Saudis still favor close ties with the US, actually, and I'm quite surprised.

Oh come off, if we wanted to. We could just loose Isreal on the Middle East. I'm sure they could handle themselves nicly. Remeber the 7 day war? Isreal singlehandly captured the Isthmus of Suez, and might have conqured Egypt, if England had not stepped in. There was also the land token from Jordan, and I'm pretty sure Syria lost some land as well.

Oh come off, if we wanted to. We could just loose Isreal on the Middle East. I'm sure they could handle themselves nicly. Remeber the 7 day war? Isreal singlehandly captured the Isthmus of Suez, and might have conqured Egypt, if England had not stepped in. There was also the land token from Jordan, and I'm pretty sure Syria lost some land as well.
But during the Yom Kippur Wars, the Israeli army was nearly defeated. If it was overrun, it'd be likely that nukes would be used on Syria, and thus, possibly starting a series of events that may lead to WWIII. Israel needed aid very quickly if we didn't want Israel to use nukes.

Oh come off, if we wanted to. We could just loose Isreal on the Middle East. I'm sure they could handle themselves nicly. Remeber the 7 day war? Isreal singlehandly captured the Isthmus of Suez, and might have conqured Egypt, if England had not stepped in. There was also the land token from Jordan, and I'm pretty sure Syria lost some land as well.

Consider how easy the US is finding holding onto Iraq. Then consider comparative resources and try to picture Israel as a regional conquerer........

They would kick a little ass.... for a while. Then it would get very ugly very quickly.

Oh come off, if we wanted to. We could just loose Isreal on the Middle East. I'm sure they could handle themselves nicly. Remeber the 7 day war? Isreal singlehandly captured the Isthmus of Suez, and might have conqured Egypt, if England had not stepped in. There was also the land token from Jordan, and I'm pretty sure Syria lost some land as well.

It's "Israel" - common mistake a lot of people make.

Oh and it was the 6 day war.. not 7 :)