|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Have they attacked us? I don't remember watching Hindus level a couple blocks of an american city. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
It is an ally. You may not approve of the alliance, but the way international diplomacy works is, alliances are based on perception, and the US and Israel are most definitely perceived as allies. If we were to suddenly break that alliance, other countries would be shocked by our betrayal and our reputation would suffer. Few nations would feel they could trust us.
Relinquishing an alliance because of problems or disagreements is one thing--and maybe that's what you're getting at--but that's another issue, and I don't want to debate that. My point was that letting go of an ally to appease enemies is dishonorable. |
[/quote]
Spare me.
1. There is no formal alliance with Israel. It isn't like NATO or anything along those lines. Therefore, how exactly would we "break" that alliance? By cutting aid? Distancing ourselves from Israel? That's about it.
2. Our reputation would improve! We wouldn't be viewed as hypocritical for once. We would look more balanced in our role as peace broker. Tell me what country would view the US's shift as a break of trust?
3. What enemies are you speaking of? Al Qaeda and the like? Uh well I don't think any of us are saying we should reduce aid and assistance simply because of some wacky terrorists. It simply is not in our strategic interest to give so much support to Israel. The costs greatly outweight the gains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| It simply is not in our strategic interest to give so much support to Israel. The costs greatly outweight the gains. |
I agree. But you don't sever relations with Israel in response to terrorist attacks by 3rd parties demanding the US to sever relations.
The right opportunity would've been with the Flotilla incident, after Israel killed an American citizen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| I am not sure that muslims hate us for our freedoms, but they sure hate modernity. Huge majorities in Pakistan support stoning adulterous wives. I think large portions of the middle east are populated by people who would be more comfortable in the year 1000 than now. |
Pakistan is not a part of the Middle East.
And you might want to mention this part of the article:
| Quote: |
| citizens continue to "consistently reject religious parties at the polls." The alliance of Islamist parties in Pakistan, the MMA, was trounced at the 2008 polls, managing to win only a miserable 2.2 percent of the vote. Moreover, a rise in public opinion against militancy in 2008 was in part due to a video showing the Taliban flogging a girl in Swat Valley, images that generated outrage in Pakistan. Almeida emphasized, "Pakistanis have certain fairly rigid conceptions of what is religiously permissible and what isn't. This isn't to say they will always do what they believe is required of them -- but when a survey puts certain questions, they're more likely to respond to what ought to be than what they do." |
In short, they're pretty human.
| Quote: |
| If the argument is that we stop supporting Isreal, thats fine, I agree. If the argument is that Israel is some monster whose crime are esp heinous, than I call BS. We give aid to plenty of countries with terrible track records. Why is Israel so special. I think everyone knows the answer. |
1. Yes, that's what we're saying (stop supporting Israel). I certainly don't think Israel is a monster. It's like many other countries.
2. Israel is the only developed, first world country we give aid to. If I'm forgetting any others, please share.
| Quote: |
| The way the media is spinning this debate is complete propaganda. I am so tired of hearing about the reasons muslims are angry. Do they have legitimate grievances? of course. Does that mean we have to tip toe around whatever latest atrocity they commit? No. |
We're not tip toeing around anything though. Invading Iraq and being engaged in a 9 year war in Afghanistan is anything but that.
| Quote: |
| By the By, I would say we would be completely justified in the Afghan war. I don't think its in our best interest to wage it, but as far as morals go, when they left their country be a base from which to attack my people, they became a target. |
We removed that regime from the government. Alas, it has come back because we support a corrupt, inept government (plus other factors admittedly). Cost? Way too many lives have been lost on all sides and money has been poured down the drain.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
I agree. But you don't sever relations with Israel in response to terrorist attacks by 3rd parties demanding the US to sever relations.
The right opportunity would've been with the Flotilla incident, after Israel killed an American citizen. |
I'm not saying sever relations, just diminish ties. It can be a gradual thing too.
Another opportunity would have been the settlement blow-up earlier this year. Obama could have said something along the lines of, "We aren't going to continue giving you billions of dollars each year to help you build settlements in disputed territories." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Spare me.
1. There is no formal alliance with Israel. It isn't like NATO or anything along those lines. Therefore, how exactly would we "break" that alliance? By cutting aid? Distancing ourselves from Israel? That's about it. |
You spare me. Israel and the US are obviously allies, you need only direct yourself to the latest soundbites by these countries' leaders. You can get caught up in semantics over a formal agreement, though, if it makes you happy.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 2. Our reputation would improve! We wouldn't be viewed as hypocritical for once. We would look more balanced in our role as peace broker. Tell me what country would view the US's shift as a break of trust? |
Mises and I were discussing a hypothetical of cutting ties with Israel because of things Mohammad Atta, among others, said/wrote regarding his motivation for the 9/11 attacks. IMO this constitutes an abandonment for the sake of appeasing an enemy. If you cut ties for that reason, then every country will feel you are untrustworthy, friend and foe. Cause then you're one cold blooded mofo--or else you're weaker than they thought.
If you want to cut ties for another reason, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's not what we were discussing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ BB. I pretty much agree. Few quick points though.
I didn't mean to imply that people would vote for violent militant groups or their proxies. My point is that they are not big fans of anything related to secular liberalism.
The aid we give to Israel goes to their military, and not too be cheap, but we are pretty much either garrisoning or supporting most of the first world militaries . I would say its not the same, but similar. Besides those points I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 2. Our reputation would improve! We wouldn't be viewed as hypocritical for once. We would look more balanced in our role as peace broker. Tell me what country would view the US's shift as a break of trust? |
Mises and I were discussing a hypothetical of cutting ties with Israel because of things Mohammad Atta, among others, said/wrote regarding his motivation for the 9/11 attacks. IMO this constitutes an abandonment for the sake of appeasing an enemy. If you cut ties for that reason, then every country will feel you are untrustworthy, friend and foe. Cause then you're one cold blooded mofo--or else you're weaker than they thought.
If you want to cut ties for another reason, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's not what we were discussing. |
Do you really think Mises was arguing that? That we'd cut or reduce ties, end our alliance, etc because of what he and other islamic terrorists said? No more, no less? Really? Come on, no one on this board is going to argue that- primarily for the reasons you gave.
I don't mean to speak for the man, but he is merely saying our alliance with Israel is simply more fuel for the fundies, and therefore another reason (and not the only reason) to change our relationship with Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Have they attacked us? I don't remember watching Hindus level a couple blocks of an american city. |
No, but if India got into a war with China, and China proceeded to occupy part of India and send a bunch of heavily armed Chinese colonialists in to displace the Indians who were already there, AND if the US were to help finance this endeavour and vote for China at the UN, plus give thumbs-up to further Chinese military incursions into India, and FURTHERMORE if American politicians, when discussing this conflict, were to routinely go on about how China was the USA's Number 1 Friend and the Indians just needed to grow up and eliminate the caste system if they wanna be taken seriously(notwithstanding those politicians who claimed that India was irredeemable as a result of being the spawn of the Antichrist)...
Then yes, I could imagine a few Hindu hotheads resident in the USA and elsewhere might take exception to this, and set off a few bombs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Do you really think Mises was arguing that? That we'd cut or reduce ties, end our alliance, etc because of what he and other islamic terrorists said? No more, no less? Really? Come on, no one on this board is going to argue that- primarily for the reasons you gave.
I don't mean to speak for the man, but he is merely saying our alliance with Israel is simply more fuel for the fundies, and therefore another reason (and not the only reason) to change our relationship with Israel. |
BB, I'm sure you're right and that's his actual position, what he may have wanted to say.
Last edited by HijackedTw1light on Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, I got a headache trying to sort that out, but it is an interesting analogy. I have one problem with it though. I don't think we really helped them militarily till after 67. Do I have that wrong? I know american jews went over to fight with them, (that movie with Kirk Douglas comes to mind) but as far as I know, official gov aid came much later than the founding. I realize we did give them some politcal cover, but we also balked them, as we forced a withdrawl from the suez canal of France, England and Israel. I think the current level of support has been a more recent event.
To put my spin on your analogy then, we would only give full support and funding to the Chinese colonial effort after 20 years or so, after splinter groups of militant Indian groups decided to hit American targets for doing biz with China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
Alright, I got a headache trying to sort that out, but it is an interesting analogy. I have one problem with it though. I don't think we really helped them militarily till after 67. Do I have that wrong? I know american jews went over to fight with them, (that movie with Kirk Douglas comes to mind) but as far as I know, official gov aid came much later than the founding. I realize we did give them some politcal cover, but we also balked them, as we forced a withdrawl from the suez canal of France, England and Israel. I think the current level of support has been a more recent event.
To put my spin on your analogy then, we would only give full support and funding to the Chinese colonial effort after 20 years or so, after splinter groups of militant Indian groups decided to hit American targets for doing biz with China. |
Yes, we started giving Israel assistance after the 6-day war. France was actually their primary weapon provider I believe. I think things started changing during the Nixon administration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Alright, I got a headache trying to sort that out, but it is an interesting analogy. I have one problem with it though. I don't think we really helped them militarily till after 67. Do I have that wrong? I know american jews went over to fight with them, (that movie with Kirk Douglas comes to mind) but as far as I know, official gov aid came much later than the founding. I realize we did give them some politcal cover, but we also balked them, as we forced a withdrawl from the suez canal of France, England and Israel. I think the current level of support has been a more recent event.
|
I think you're absolutely correct about that. Certainly, as you say, the US didn't support Israel during the Suez thing in '56.
However, if your point is "Well, they hated us before we started backing them full-force in '67", I'm not sure if that's really true. But I need to get going here, so this will have to wait 'till later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I think you're absolutely correct about that. Certainly, as you say, the US didn't support Israel during the Suez thing in '56.
However, if your point is "Well, they hated us before we started backing them full-force in '67", I'm not sure if that's really true. But I need to get going here, so this will have to wait 'till later. |
The US was the first country to recognise the state of Israel, a fact which suggests to me that the US was pretty enthusiastic from the outset. I think the speed at which recognition is secured is usually a pretty good barometer of international enthusiasm - or conversely opposition - to a newly formed state, although this is a commonsense-driven opinion rather than the result of any sigificant reading on the matter.
Still, I guess Kosovo represents a good example in a present day context. 60 years down the line I guess the Serbs and the Russians will still be more hostile to it than the US and the UK for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
Alright, I got a headache trying to sort that out, but it is an interesting analogy. I have one problem with it though. I don't think we really helped them militarily till after 67. Do I have that wrong? I know american jews went over to fight with them, (that movie with Kirk Douglas comes to mind) but as far as I know, official gov aid came much later than the founding. I realize we did give them some politcal cover, but we also balked them, as we forced a withdrawl from the suez canal of France, England and Israel. I think the current level of support has been a more recent event.
To put my spin on your analogy then, we would only give full support and funding to the Chinese colonial effort after 20 years or so, after splinter groups of militant Indian groups decided to hit American targets for doing biz with China. |
Are you saying that the US only helped the Israeli colonial effort 20 years after Arab splinter groups started targetting the US? You must be living in a different space-time continuum to the rest of us... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I know. It's like this: A guy breaks into a house and kills the family less one son and the son hates the murderer because of a book he read once. |
According to the Israeli apologist narrative: Arabs for centuries were all just chomping at the bit to murder Jews and Americans for no rational reason. And then, by total coincidence, an American-backed Jewish state was formed in the middle of the arab world, thus giving the arabs the opportunity to start killing Jews and Americans, which they'd been dreaming of all along. |
Is it also the Israeli apologist narrative that the Arabs invaded Israel in 1948? And that both Syria and Jordan initially had plans to annex parts of what is now Palestine and prevent the formation of a Palestine state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
