NationStates Jolt Archive

(USA blocks every resolution against Israel) Just like the Russians block every Resolution against the Iranians. It's patronage, pure and simple.You are implying Iran gets the amount of Favoritism Israel gets? I call Bull Shit.
How many times has Russia Blocked resolutions against Iran?

You are implying Iran gets the amount of Favoritism Israel gets? I call Bull Shit.
How many times has Russia Blocked resolutions against Iran?

Not comparable, as until comparatively recently, Russian and Iranian interests were rarely aligned, especially due to vested Russian interests involved in keeping oil prices high, but now Putin's got his proxy to use against the US, and as a result, we're witnessing the increase in Iranian patronage.

For the Soviet Union, though, the old recipient of USSR patronage in the Middle East was Syria, pathetic Stalinist stooge that it was.

Not only that, but Israel receives an inordinate amount of flak from the United Nations, especially in comparison with other countries with similar, or worse, records. So, the UN's record on said state is phenomenally sketchy.

Not comparable, as until comparatively recently, Russian and Iranian interests were rarely aligned.You are the one doing the comparisons darling, not me. ;) Just like the Russians block every Resolution against the Iranians.

You are the one doing the comparisons darling, not me. ;)

The word "will" should have been included.

The word "will" should have been included.I guess what you mean to say is

"USA blocks every resolution against Israel, Just like Russia will block every Resolution against the Iranians."

And, really, the US didn't particularly care about the Israelis for a long time, and in fact, actually acted against them in the UN (Suez Crisis and arms sales restrictions, anyone?). The strongest supporters of Israel for a very, very long time happened to be European Social-Democrats, of all people. It was not until the first Likud government was elected that the European Center-left abandoned Israel, and the US picked

I guess what you mean to say is

Quite.

I'm working on a 2,500 packet mailing, so I've made a substantial number basic context and typing errors over the last week, as I'm trying to stuff envelopes and type at the exact same time.

But, there's no question that Pooty-poot's personal protege will be receiving the benefit of his patronage for some time.

And, really, the US didn't particularly care about the Israelis for a long time, and in fact, actually acted against them in the UN (Suez Crisis and arms sales restrictions, anyone?).

Well the Suez crisis they had no choice over because of what the USSR was doing at that sametime. Ike did a wonderful job with that one.

The strongest supporters of Israel for a very, very long time happened to be European Social-Democrats, of all people. It was not until the first Likud government was elected that the European Center-left abandoned Israel, and the US picked

yep.

It was not until the first Likud government was elected that the European Center-left abandoned Israel, and the US picked

Not exactly, it was a few years before (The Likud were elected in 1977), during the Israeli-Egyptian Attrition war. One evidence of this is the Israeli Air-Force: It had French aircrafts in the 1967 war, and American in the 1973 war.

But besides that, yes.

Ugh, that pervasive myth again.

General War is good for economic restructuring and rebuilding. It forces the temporary regimentation of society, under the banner of national survival. Limited wars, like this pukey little crapfest in Iraq (especially when they're in volatile regions with on which we rely for a nigh irreplaceable resource) are economically awful.

War is never good for the economy. As Ludwig von Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

War is never good for the economy. As Ludwig von Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

Actually in the long term the war in Iraq will be very economically beneficial to the US, it was born out of the frustration of US economic interests that Middle Eastern oil was so protected, Saudi, Iran etc are all very protected markets, first thing Bremer did when he was put in charge with unlimited powers was to privatize Iraqs state companies (especially oil) and introduce a 15% flat tax and other radical neoliberal 'reforms', it was essentially theft on a massive scale until the Iraqi government came in and it was scaled back, but remember that Bremer wrote the current Iraq constitution, and he put in it that they can't wind back his neoliberal 'reforms', in fact they have to continue them. This is very unlikely however, given the Blackwater situation and all the rest, and the parliament being dominated with pro-state ownership parties - it probably won't last long - which explains the massive US diplomatic presence.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

War is great for opening up new markets, you can destroy the country and then open new markets for restructured rebuilding etc, Hitler and the fascists perfect this tactic pretty well, they wanted to have economic autarky but they couldn't do it without invading neighbouring countries and looting vast resources, slave labor also had alot to do with this. Mercantillism is a good word for US economic interest in the world, but especially in Iraq - the world is starting to close up these days - you can see it in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and even in Africa - protectionism is coming back so US economic wars are bound to increase in amount and size into the future, especially as peak oil approaches. As the 19th century economist Frédéric Bastiat put it, "If goods don't cross borders, troops will".

Actually in the long term the war in Iraq will be very economically beneficial to the US, it was born out of the frustration of US economic interests that Middle Eastern oil was so protected, Saudi, Iran etc are all very protected markets, first thing Bremer did when he was put in charge with unlimited powers was to privatize Iraqs state companies (especially oil) and introduce a 15% flat tax and other radical neoliberal 'reforms', it was essentially theft on a massive scale until the Iraqi government came in and it was scaled back, but remember that Bremer wrote the current Iraq constitution, and he put in it that they can't wind back his neoliberal 'reforms', in fact they have to continue them. This is very unlikely however, given the Blackwater situation and all the rest, and the parliament being dominated with pro-state ownership parties - it probably won't last long - which explains the massive US diplomatic presence.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

War is great for opening up new markets, you can destroy the country and then open new markets for restructured rebuilding etc, Hitler and the fascists perfect this tactic pretty well, they wanted to have economic autarky but they couldn't do it without invading neighbouring countries and looting vast resources, slave labor also had alot to do with this. Mercantillism is a good word for US economic interest in the world, but especially in Iraq - the world is starting to close up these days - you can see it in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and even in Africa - protectionism is coming back so US economic wars are bound to increase in amount and size into the future, especially as peak oil approaches. As the 19th century economist Frédéric Bastiat put it, "If goods don't cross borders, troops will".

Good for politically connected corporations, but not the economy.

War is never good for the economy. As Ludwig von Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." And then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).

That is downright false. War is often good for a country's economy; America in WWII for example.

I know I am late in this thread....and sorry if somebody has mentioned this already.

Ever since the dismantling of the khilafah in 1918, muslim groups have been trying to form one again. For years, groups like Muslim Brotherhood etc were fighting local rulers ("near enemy") who they viewed as obstructors to their goal. OBL, Zawahiri etc were of the opinion that they have to fight the "far enemy" first and this will lead to the overturn of the near enemy and a khilafah can be established.

They tried attacking US elsewhere but nothing could be more spectacular than taking the fight to the continental US. Hence 9/11.

Like how to instituionalise torture, racism/sectaranism/, occupy territory and not get "Coalitioned" out of it, run areas as apartheid provinces and have gullible people in certain countries tout you as the epitome of modernity? Yeah...Just think.....

None of that is new to Arab nations.

None of that is new to Arab nations.Arab nations are touted as the epitome of modernity?

None of that is new to Arab nations.

I was beaten to it in Msg 266.

And, really, the US didn't particularly care about the Israelis for a long time, and in fact, actually acted against them in the UN (Suez Crisis and arms sales restrictions, anyone?). The strongest supporters of Israel for a very, very long time happened to be European Social-Democrats, of all people. It was not until the first Likud government was elected that the European Center-left abandoned Israel, and the US picked

Well, its really since the occupation....You can't do that and be in a certain group. I mean most lads don't mind people falling unconcious and occassionally puking, but draw the line at somebody coming in and crapping on the carpet. They went and crapped on the carpet.

You can't say that it was all their fault. We've been screwing with them for too long, and we kinda did see this coming, just like Pearl Harbor. We screw with countries and people, and then think they won't hit us back? Well, both times they have, and if we do it again, it's just going to be worse. "Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world."-That sounds like something George Bush would say.

I think attacking civilians just makes the terrorists fecal-pates. But I do agree we're hypocrites in a lot of ways. We killed over 200,000 Japanese civilians in WWII. But still, the terrorists actions cannot in any way be justified, or excused. Osama bin Laden should be put to death if caught.

Osama bin Laden should be put to death if caught.

Um no, he should not be put to death if caught.

I think the reasoning has to be very general: the hegemonic power in the world is an at least covertly Christian state, certain interpretations of Islam call for an enemy to be fought, put one and one together and you have two.

The issue is possibly the extent to which Islam as a whole adopts this interpretation.

Arab nations are touted as the epitome of modernity?

And there is nothing else to learn from Israel ?

That is downright false. War is often good for a country's economy; America in WWII for example.

No, it's not. Prosperity didn't resume until after the war.

No, it's not. Prosperity didn't resume until after the war.

Actually...American Prosperiety did go up during World War II. Unemployment also plunged as jobs in factories and other sectors opened up.

And there is nothing else to learn from Israel ?

Colonialism went out of fashion a few decades ago I am afraid.

Actually...American Prosperiety did go up during World War II. Unemployment also plunged as jobs in factories and other sectors opened up.

Mainly because government spending on certain projects increased radically, while millions of people were removed from the work force for military service.

Um, uh, why not? He didn't mind putting 1500 others to death via fire.

Does it really have to be explained to you?

Colonialism went out of fashion a few decades ago I am afraid.

And how, praytell, is Israel colonial?

Um no, he should not be put to death if caught.

Um, uh, why not? He didn't mind putting 1500 others to death via fire.

Does it really have to be explained to you?

Yes. I can't see any logical reason why we should not kill him.

Yes. I can't see any logical reason why we should not kill him.

*sighs*

If you kill Bin laden, he'll turn into a martyer. The last thing we want to do is turn him into one.

And how, praytell, is Israel colonial?

The Settlements.

The Settlements.

Disregarding the fact that colonialism is predicated on the occupation of far and distant lands, to which a state would have absolutely no legitimate claim (of which, there is a substantial argument in favor of the Israelis), what about the fact that the current government of Israel has a very strong anti-settlements bent? How about the fact that the unprecedented step of dismantling the Gaza settlements, and that it was elected with the promise of dismantling a large portion of the West Bank settlements as well?

Colonialism went out of fashion a few decades ago I am afraid.

Arabs were amongst the earliest colonisers. They can teach Israel in this.

Most of what people here accuse about Israel is nothing new to Arab nations / Arab society.

To say that there is nothing to learn from Israel only shows how biased you are.