VictorOriginally posted by SOC
I understand the Communist influence on the decision to back Israel, but I still believe that we’d have been better off trying to get Soviet influence out by giving the Arabs a better deal. You have to ask yourself-would we be better serving ourselves by helping the Arabs or the Israelis?
I understand what you are saying but think about it this way. If the US hadn’t backed Israel would the US military be sitting on the third largest oil reserves on planet? 😉
Cynicism aside, I think the Saudis, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Egypt all got great deals from the US. Sean, you betray the Israeli prism through which you view the MidEast. The US has genuinely good relations with many Arab countries and sees them as valuable allies.
It’s the Arab countries that need to get off their high horse and stop relating EVERYTHING in the world to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the Arab countries would only pursue foreign policies that is not centered on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, maybe their relationship with the US would be a little bit better. Don’t throw the entire blame for the US’s relationship with the Arabs solely at the US’s doorstep.
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
You got my intention backwards, I’d have us on the other side of the issue. It would better suit our interests to support the Muslims and Arabs on this one in my opinion. Think of what might have been avoided?
You saying that is a bit surprising because you totally disregard history, very unlike you. The US wasn’t always on Israel’s side. Initially the US had a very hands off approach and the Israelis got most of its support from Europe. Later the Arabs got massive support from the USSR, that’s when the US stepped in to contain the communist influence in the MidEast by supporting the only country that was aligned more or less with the Western block.
The US’s support for Israel isn’t an outcome of a Judeo-Christian conspiracy but a product of Cold War political and military calculations. It’s not Israel’s fault that the main Arab ally went belly up in the 90s and left the Arabs out on a thin limb. 😀
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
“You mean:If it results in a better existance for American citizens, the price is well worth it for Americans to have that as a goal/policy/etc.”
Hells yeah! It’s always the people being stepped on that complain the most 😀
To add to that: Simply, it suits US interests and probably many European interests for Israel to have nukes. While it doesn’t suit their interests for the Arabs to have them. Plain and simple. The golden rule: Man with the gold makes the rules.
VictorBoo hoo, the Arabs don’t have nukes… cry me a freakin river you babies.
If the Arabs want nukes, let them try to obtain them. If they can withstand the US and international pressure, they will show that they have the cajones to have their nukes. Else, all these Arab apologists should zip it.
And as GarryB says, it’s the law of the jungle out there. If Israel is strong enough to impose its will on its neighbors then weep because the Arabs are too impotent to stop it. Don’t keep whining and singing the same tune abuot “evil Israel”.
VictorNotice that countries that have nukes can withstand the international and US pressure to get rid of them. The simple rule of possesing nukes is that if you are strong enough to withstand the pressure, you are strong enough to have them. Libya, Iran, SA, Brazil, etc were not capable of withstanding the pressure hence, no nukes for them. Well and good.
If Israel is strong enough to withstand pressure and keep its nukes, then why shouldn’t they have them? Also, the theory about Israel blackmailing the US for money, that’s is utter male bovine crap. The money that Israel gets is a direct payout for making peace with Egypt and Jordan and for not retaliating to Saddam’s Scuds during GWI. Also, empirical evidence doesn’t bear out in the least regarding the US succumbing to anyone’s nuclear blackmail. The US hasn’t succumbed to anyone’s nuke blackmail.
Terror orgs that have the potential to do serious harm to national security nearly always have other state backers. Modern history bears it out not just with the Islamic terror orgs but also the multitude of socialist ones and the counter socialist ones as well.
Arthur, you think I am wrong. I think you are wrong. To remain friendly, let’s just leave it at that.
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
Yeah, but you have to ask yourself, what is really deterring them? The Israeli nuclear threat, or the US Air Force Precision Guided Bombing Demonstration Team? 😀
Little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.
VictorOriginally posted by Johnny Cotter
Well, well, well, so what do you say about our $5 billion aid a year with no questions asked?
Egypt also gets almost as much and it doesn’t even have an enemy threatening to push it (and its civilization) into the sea. Go fig!
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
Maybe they don’t have the airlift or sealift capability to do that, but find me an Arab nation strong or capable enough to invade and conquer present-day Israel.
Find me an Arab (or Farsi) nation capable and willing to use WMD on Israel? Why don’t they? Because of something called detterence.
VictorOriginally posted by PAF Fan
So Victor, you are implying AQ cannot operate without state backing!? Seems like the entire Pentagon would disagree with you on that front mate………
Actually, the Pentagon agrees with me… err… I agree with them. Why do you think that the US is going after Iraq and A’stan? So that AQ doesn’t have any place to re-establish themselves.
I hate to bring this but it’s also recently in the news that the US is presuring Pakistan to act against AQ remnants. Why? So that AQ is on the run and doesn’t have a place to set up shop. Sure, AQ was not destroyed by the A’stan invasion but they are on the run which is exactly what one of the aims of the “War on Terror” is. To put terrorists on the defensive and take the initiate away from them.
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
Then Israel needs no WMD.
Well, Israel doesn’t exactly have the resources to invade countries around the world now do they? Also, an equivalent strike on Israel of the nature of 9/11 would put the Israeli nation’s existance at stake. I don’t blame them for not letting something like that occur.
Originally posted by SOC
That’s really watered down. AQ was around well before they moved into Afghanistan, and they’re still around now that the Taliban has fallen.
Yes, they did… in Sudan and other countries and those countries were forced to kick out AQ but A’stan (Talibs) obliged AQ. Which goes to show that terror orgs are nothing without backing from state actors. The nukes are there not to deter the terror orgs but the state actors behind the terror orgs.
VictorA’stan provided the materiel support that allowed AQ to operate and plan not only without hindrance but with the govt’s blessing. AQ was partially funded by the drug money from A’stan. Taliban and the AQ had a symbiotic relationship that the US went in to break up.
SOC, so you expect a tiny country with nary its own resources to trust the that “international community” will prevent its destruction? It’s a very good thing that the Israelis don’t depend on the kindness of strangers for their survival.
VictorWhat happened to Iraq and Afghanistan should be detterent enough for any govt helping terrorists against the US.
Let’s be realistic. The terror orgs around the world would not have the level of power they do if they didn’t have political and financial, and sometimes military backing from a state actor of some kind. Afghanistan was the state actor behind AQ and frankly, nuking Afghanistan would have been a waste of a perfectly good nuke on bad trash.
Now, what prevents Kraplakistan from helping a terror org seeking to do a WMD strike against the US? Yep, the good ole Peacemaker.
For the love of humanity, pleeeeeeeeeeeze don’t drag India and Pakistan into this thread. Pleeeeeeze.
VictorOriginally posted by SOC
Do you honestly think a nuclear weapon is a valid deterrent to a terrorist? We have thousands and Al-Qaeda didn’t stop 9/11. The Palestinians would laugh at the idea, since nuking the Gaza strip would certainly have nasty environmental repercussions on Israel itself, not to mention the obvious political fallout (pun intended).
Yes, I do. As I have mentioned before, the terrorists are nothing but fronts for the Arab govts. Sure, nukes won’t prevent the bus bombings but if the Israelis didn’t have a strategic detterent what is to prevent an Arab govt from slipping a terror org a chem-bio WMD terror weapon? What prevents it is the certainty of Israeli nukes landing on top of Sheik Jabooti’s throne room.
So, yes, I agree nukes don’t deter conventional terrorists but it does make them think twice about moving on to the next level of attacks.
VictorWhy should the Israelis de-nuke? USSR is gone but the Arabs are still there. The Saudis, the Syrians, the terrorists (who are funded by the Arab oil money and are nothing but proxies for the Arab govt) are still there.
Israeli nukes are not destabilizing to the region. They are not bartering their nukes for oil, or for missiles, or for cash. The Israeli nukes are for self-defense.
Think about it, if the Syrians had 200 nukes would the middle East exist today? If the Iraqis had 200 nukes, would they have held off on using it?
VictorA tiny country with a small armed forces, relatively, surrounded by giant neighbors with large militaries supported by a superpower that had shown that it will give weapons away if it suites its purpose. Who is a better candidate to have nukes for self-defense than Israel? A country that has already been attack more than THRICE by every contiguous neighbor.
It’s not like they are brandishing their nukes at everyone all the time. They just subtlely let it be known that there will be a price to pay for pushing the Jews into the sea. Are the Arabs willing to lose Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Riyadh, etc for the simple pleasure of pushing the Jews into the sea?
Sign In
