Korean Job Discussion Forums

[madcap]

Simple. We use Israel to enforce our interests in the region so we can distance ourselves from as much conflict as possible. This policy obviously changed with the Iraw war, but once the troops are drawn out, we will continue to use the Israeli army as our proxy in the area. We "assist" in Israeli decision making by the level of aid we are willing to give them (99% millitary). But, America doesn't do anything to be nice. We support our interests abroad. If we stopped all aid to them, countries like Iran and Syria would wipe them off the map, but as long as we give them superior military technology and financial backing, they have the ability to stand on their own and keep the region unstable, always with the understanding that if they get into too tight of a jam, we'll be there with a couple hundred thousand troops to help them out.
Instability is good because that prevents governments from spending money on things like universities, infrastructure, and manufacturing, all of which would give them more independence. If the Middle East suddenly realized that they were capable of living without massive western involvement, they might start asking questions like, why are the major oil exchanges in New York and London, which have no oil? Why don't we build more refineries so that we can get a fair share of the oil profits since it's pretty much our only natural resource? Why do we have to go through these middle men, when we could just as easily be doing this ourselves and use that money to make our country into an international economic power? Because the region is so unstable, it also increases the rate of corruption which is good for the powerful 1% of the population (American puppets) who spend all that money on palaces and yachts etc. instead of building hospitals, schools, etc. This way they can make a quick buck for themselves and let the big foreign oil companies run everything. It's like global warming. Well, the oil will run out, but we'll be dead by then, so it's not our problem.

[madcap]

Oh, and by the way, who broke the remote in the first place?

[thepeel]

The questions were:

1) How do we use the mercanry state of Israel to do our bidding.

[madcap]

OK, I would have responded sooner, but it's been a busy week at school and I just got the internet hooked up at home the other day.

I don't know how much detail you want me to go into to placate you, not that it will matter because I don't think it will change your mind, so let�s just say that this is posted for the benefit of others who are interested in this topic.

1) How do we use the mercenary state of Israel to do our bidding?

The best way for the US to hold onto its influence in the world is by controlling ME oil. No question all the world wants it (the oil) but that a very disproportionate amount of it goes right to the US (we import more oil than Japan, China, the Netherlands, and France combined, the next four of the top 5 petroleum importing countries) In order to maintain that control, we have historically used friendly powers in the region to act on our interests. Primarily Iran until the overthrow of the Shah and Israel. Once we lost Iran as a power base, Israel's role became all the more important. The creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent issues of the Palestinian settlement have been a thorn in the side of the surrounding Arab countries since the countries formation, as shown by the numerous wars that have been waged against Israel since it's formation, the main purpose being to settle the issue of the displaced Palestinians and territorial disputes. Well, without massive US economic and military aid (more to Israel than to all other countries we support combined) the country would have been wiped out long ago. So how does this support our interests in the region? Well, their use to us depends on the fact that they are constantly faced with destruction and therefore, completely rely on our support to continue their existence. Historically, we have always blocked the efforts of both sides in forming a reasonable and lasting truce. Originally, we just blocked with veto power in the UN (I�m not citing references here, you can do the bookwork if you want, but I�ve seen it all before and all it will be is waste your time), but we also use the threat of cutting off that support to maintain influence on their government. �You know guys, we don�t really support this and that clause in this agreement. We think you ought to go back to the negotiating table�and by the way, the appropriations committee is meeting next month and they think if this goes through, you won�t be needing those new F-16�s (or whatever we give them) that we talked about last time�� And say what you will about Camp David peace talks and Madrid conferences and the Road Map to Peace, every one of those solutions is written to fail. Instability is critical to our power there because it forces other regional powers there to funnel a large amount of money into their militaries rather than focus on social welfare. You can say all you want about Saudi Arabia giving money to its unemployed workers, but it has to in order to feed them. They have an (unofficial because they won�t release it) unemployment rate of 25% simply because they haven�t build up an infrastructure. You think they give most of those oil profits to the people? I don�t think so. They get the scraps of what is left over after the princes have built their palaces and summer homes in the south of France. The military gets the bulk of what is left over. BTW, those princes that I mention in SA are the same ones that run the country, so of course they want to keep the money coming and keep the people placid at the same time. If you build universities and public works, though, you begin to get a more educated workforce that starts to ask why they have to be content with living under the boot heals of some American puppets. Iran is one of the few exceptions to this rule and, guess what, they also happen to be the main enemy of US interests in the area. They also serve a secondary purpose which is to be seen as a danger to US interests abroad and to the world. They are developing weapons of mass destruction, they are building up their army. Well, so is China. Well, China isn�t run by extremists who support TERRORISM, oh, wait, yes they are. (Lets not get sidetracked on that issue, though) By servings as this target of hate, we can justify more military spending of our own in lieu of domestic spending. A huge portion of the money that goes through the Pentagon is for weapons development and research, which is, in turn, given to big corporations in the form of subsidized research. Why should IBM go to the trouble and expense of developing new computer systems when they can be commissioned by the government to design a new guidance system that requires new microchips and processors and have the whole thing funded by government grants? In a word, it�s good for the economy because now IBM can put that technology into its new computers and sell it at a price that is acceptable to the consumer and turn a profit. Everyone wins except the poor people that are wiped out by that cruise missile that guidance system went into.



Quote:

�So, if it were true, it stopped being true in March of 2003. In which case, your tense (at the very least) was wrong.

But what are our interests? You need to explain that. I said avoid platitudes.

The region would obviously be more stable if Israel were allowed to disappear but more unstable if we allowed the Israelis to be on even ground militarily. Which is it?�


OK, does that cover interests in the region and instability?

And don�t correct my tenses if you know (or can logically assume) what I mean, and I won�t correct your spelling and grammar. I think we can agree that those points aren�t very relevant. We went into Iraq thinking we would be in and out and that was just the result of poor planning. We wanted a quick repeat of Desert Storm (though we knew back in 1990 that if we got rid of Saddam there would be massive sectarian violence which is precisely the reason we didn�t do it). We need to assert ourselves every now and then to show just how strong we are (and we blew it this time) lest people begin to question us and start thinking they can start raising their heads and demanding to be treated like equals.

I actually don�t think it�s entirely beyond the realm of possibility that we knew exactly what would happen when we invaded and did it to keep other countries from gaining access to Iraqi oil. There is also the spillover effect that it is having on Iran. Iraq will keep Iran busy for some years to come, even after we pull out both in increasing their influence on Iraq and dealing with the different sects and the violence they have in their own country. We have all the oil we need at the moment from SA and a few other countries. Iraq and Iran don�t trade with us, they trade with China, which is going to have to double their importation of oil in the next decade or so in order to maintain their economic development. Without that, they will be forced to remain supplicant to the US and pose less of a threat. We like things just how they are at the moment and don�t want them to get any grand ideas of becoming the next USSR or, God forbid, USA.

As to fluctuating oil prices, there again, that is good for instability. A country that gets the majority of its revenue from oil profits has to have a fairly conservative national budget because they can�t speculate too highly about what the oil market will do in the coming year. They may easily end up with an unexpected surplus or deficit and this makes fiscal planning difficult. There again, confusion and instability.

Regarding the oil trading centers, I admit that I don�t know as much about the markets as I would like to, and if you can educate me more on the subject, please do so, but I will say this, both Dubai and Singapore, while being major Islamic hubs, are still both centers of massive American and British investments. You don�t find it odd that the very places these markets are moving to are practically owned by rich westerners and a very few of their local business partners? The US is fine with little concessions to keep our partners happy (note: happiness is different from stability) so long as our investors still own the banks and the trading companies and seventy cents of every dollar comes right back into our greedy little hands (OK, I don�t know the percentages, I�m making a point here).

And finally (FINALLY!) Iran�s domestic economic policy. Yes, Iran has a domestic policy. They make some military hardware that they sell to countries that can�t afford American, Russian, or Chinese models. They make inferior televisions and cars, the market for which would be crushed if relations were normalized and they began to import foreign merchandise. They have an estimated 40% of their pop living below the poverty line and they still get, I believe, 70% of their revenue from, you guessed it, oil. (That�s a number I�m drawing from memory because I�m too tired of writing on this subject to look it up. Feel free to correct me, I won�t argue)


Well, if you�re still with me through all that, I�m sure you have a whole host of new issues with it and I respect your opinion. You won�t change mine, however, just as I�m sure I haven�t changed yours, making this entire response moot. I just wanted to respond to your questions and I think we should simply agree to disagree if you have any more to say on the topic.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Octavius Hite]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Octavius Hite]

I don't care one way or the other on this issue, my point is merely that it is not 3 or 4 billion a year itd at least 8 if not more. I'm staying out of this one, just wanted to make sure the debate is properly framed, as so often is NOT the case with this particular topic.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Octavius Hite]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[quote="Octavius Hite"]

[Octavius Hite]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Octavius Hite]

I'm not defending the article, just linked to it to provide a counter point. I neither agree nor disagree with the authors intentions.

And even if they repay the loans they should be considered part of the overall economic aid package given to Israel. Also any weapons system tranfsers, food, technology etc etc should all be considered part of the "aid" they recieve. I also believe that remittances and charitable donations should count as aid, for all countries.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]