And we wonder why the middle east hates us??

Post Reply New Topic

Israel hails US military aid rise


US 'plans huge Saudi arms deal'




For those not in the "know" about why these stories incriminate us in the middle east...us giving even more weapons and ammo to israel backs that we blindly support israel no matter what they do and will always arm them with more and more weapons. With the Sauds, it's a dictatorship that is oppressive to its people....in other words, we have no basis for claiming we're against any dictatorship. Well, actually, it's an absolute monarchy...so he calls himself king instead of gracious leader or whatever other stupid terms dictators use. Also, according the The Economist's Democracy index, the Saudi government is the eight most authoritarian regime in the world.


So...umm.....we're not making friends in our dealings...just enemies.

yup. as long as the problem of israel and palestine isnt solved, and you guys being "allied" to israel, you can do whatever you want down there - it wont do any good.
even what could have been an actual solved problem - getting saddam out of iraq - turned into a fiasco.

Hopefully more Americans in the future will be more aware of the disproportionate influence of the Israel lobby, like with the publicity over that academic paper and Carter's book and eventually get sick of it.

And now that the major groups like AIPAC are pushing for military aggression against Iran, perhaps they will become more alienated from mainstream American opinion.

You realize that pretty much the entirety of Carter's book has been debunked, right?

And that he's been so disgraceful that after the release of "Peace Not Aparthied", 12 of the board members of the Carter Foundation actually resigned in protest?

Hopefully, people will never get sick of American aid to Israel, because really, who else are they going to send aid to? Lebanon? Syria? Iran?

The problem is exclusively the Islamic Theocratic* nations of the Middle East. Israel is a scapegoat, just like the Jews have always been scapegoats throughout history. The leaders of these nations do not want peace between Israel and Islam, because if it happens, they'll have to look at why they keep killing each other. They're already fastidiously not talking about the fact that Hamas and Fatah went to war with each other the second the Wall stopped them from killing Israelis.

Now, I think allying ourselves with Saudia Arabia is a horrible, horrible mistake. As a matter of fact, pre-Iran-nuclear-crisis, I'd have said Saudi Arabia was the biggest problem nation in the middle east.

We're nice to Saudi Arabia, because that's who gives us most of our oil.

People resign for all kinds of reasons, and not all of them good. People resign, especially publicly, to make a point. It doesn't necessarily make it a good point, it doesn't necessarily make it a sane point. Those are independent of the protest.

Secondly, sending weapons anywhere is naive. A 108-year-old veteran of World War I recently toured the battlefields of Flanders. He knows of war, he knew first-hand one of the deadliest wars ever fought. His opinion? That everyone who fights a war has lost. You want to call him ignorant? Would you (or I) have been able to withstand the trauma he endured? I doubt it.

No nation can ever know peace if it is perpetually preparing for war. Remember George Orwell? We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

And, no, very little - if any - of Carter's book has been debunked, any more than Anne Frank's diary was written after the fact as some Holocaust deniers would have you believe. Only the very brave or the very stupid would use the same techniques to obscure reality as the most obscene of the extremists.

Theocracies? The world is full of them. George Bush is hardly agnostic, his first Secretary of Defense insisted on prayer meetings and Bible studies, the Supreme Court is a bunch of religious nuts and we've Yet Another case of Christianity being stuffed into courtrooms being taken to court by the ACLU. Hell, the USA derives its work ethics from the Puritans (a group of Christians kicked out of England for murdering the King and installing a military dictatorship), there are examples of Christian sects actively migrating members in order to control elections, and I know of no other country where they even need an acronym like WASP.

You want to talk theocracies, you need to include the ones in the Western hemisphere as well.

Oh, and the wall stopped nothing. The reason Hamas and Fatah went to war was because a legitimate election result was ignored by America because it went the wrong way. The thing about freedom that the right wing do not seem to comprehend is that it includes the freedom to hold opinions other than your own. Even if you don't like them. Especially if you don't like them. If you dictate what others can think or feel, then what freedom do they have? They're your slaves, to do as you will or be punished in vengeance by a wrathful and abusive master. Is that what you want the world to be? Your footstool?

Rome made that mistake. So have other empires - including that of the Islamists. They are bitter over that loss, but have failed to learn the lesson or comprehend why dictating the lives of others is the road paved with good intentions that leads direct to hell. It is stupidity, insanity and greed that makes others think that they can walk that same road and not suffer the same consequence.

Israel is hardly a scapegoat and the Jews have hardly always been scapegoats. History has never sided with one party for very long, and never subjected any side to perpetual harm. The ebb and flow is no different for any people. There are over twenty thousand societies in the world today - I need know only one that is suffering to prove my point, but to claim that the Jews are exclusively underfoot requires you to know them all. You care to name them, or would you rather admit that maybe that claim is neither honest nor accurate.

Who would I send aid to? To all who suffer. Without exception. Remember your Bible? A certain James, perhaps? What good is it to pity the poor, the hungry, the needy? Faith without works is dead, and any who would claim the least bit of Christian faith must either be in favor of aiding ALL or be guilty of a faith that is every bit as dead as the dodo. "But they might hurt us!" If your brother strikes you on your right cheek, offer him your left also. Those who would deny a single person the aid they needed, no matter how foreign, no matter how potentially (or actually) hostile, have no business claiming any Christian faith. Those who deny Christ's own commandment to love your brother as yourself (no exceptions made) and James' admonishments that denial of aid is a denial of faith - I wouldn't regard them as remotely Christian, no matter what they say.

What of non-Christians? The Celts would kill anyone - including their leader - who deprived another of food, clothing or shelter. The Sumerians and Babylonians placed private property and civil rights above all other laws. Indeed, under Sumerian law, annexing using a wall of the kind in Israel would be reason enough for the courts to rule the government unlawful and have it replaced. The Romans were fairly notorious about creating and sustaining poverty, hardship and need - often in places that had known none of these. But even the Romans provided avenues of escape - and honored them, no matter what. King John was a murderous thug and a traitor to his own people, but he still signed the Magna Carta.

Is modern life suiting people so badly that we must be more depraved than the Romans?

Are we so despairing of the needs of both justice and mercy that we must make the likes of King John look noble?

No? Then give aid as aid is needed, NOT as political whims dictate. Grain, not guns. Books, not bombs.

"But we do send aid! We've even made airdrops!" Yeah, with identical packaging to clusterbomb munitions. There's a lot of innocent deaths that whatever afterlife may exist WILL demand an answer for. I do hope those on the far right have one.

the iran nuclear crisis is a hoax. just like the gulf of tonkin incident. it's a pre-fabricated lie to try and drag us into another war.


saudi arabia is much much much worse than iran.


and israel should get no aid from us anymore. they refuse to be part of any kind of positive solution in the middle east so they should not be treated as if they are.

israel isn't even a legitimate state...it was something that england did in a fit of hubris...there was no israel just 70 years ago. it was just a brittish territory known as palestine....and before that, it was a part of the ottoman empire.

You work in a high security US government job then? You KNOW its all pre-fab lies do you? You have proof to back up this claim?

Maybe the Sauds are worse than the Iranians, or Iraqis, or whoever, but maybe if these countries didn't do things like take the p*ss with the oil supply situation, or took the time to use their oil wealth in a sensible way, people would not be so inclined to mess with them. Its simple enough. The west needs oil, the middle east supplies it. Financial transaction ensues, everyone is happy.

How positive a solution can Israel possibly be part of, when surrounded by arab nations who want nothing more than to steam over its borders and kill every last man,woman,and child there? The only reasons they don't is because of foreign intervention, the fact they can't get on with each other enough to organise it, and the fact that Israel has got VERY good at pwning them when they try. The arab nations have been just as obstinate about peaceful solutions, if not more so, and massively more belligerent about it as well.

And before that it belonged to someone else, then someone else, etc etc ad infinitum. There are plenty of nations worldwide that claim to be legitimate, brought into existence by colonial powers in the past two hundred years or so, where there were not nations before. Many of these places were balkanised tribal states who had taken the land earlier from someone else anyway. If you study enough old maps and treaties, you can claim ownership to just about anywhere, whether it was ever yours or not. Its a void argument.

You work in top security posts in all the Middle Eastern Governments? Hey, same claim so same rebuttal. You can't possibly know what other countries do or don't want, you can only know what you've heard and hearsay isn't admissible anywhere that's worth a damn.

That's not to say that other countries wouldn't attack Israel - I don't know "for a fact" any more than you do. I do know, however, that genocide is rare in the Middle East. The Jerubites who actually built Jerusalem in the first place don't seem to be around any more, for example. Hmmm. So maybe I should also add something about throwing stones in glass houses.

But the fact is that the entire Middle East has been in a state of turmoil for six or seven thousand years, and will likely be in turmoil for six or seven thousand more. This isn't an Arab thing or an Islamic thing - the chaos and confusion predates such modern civilizations by a vaster expanse of time than you could possibly imagine.

Yet, despite all of this, the Jews have survived and will survive. They're a tenacious bunch, they've endured greater calamities than most. They've also risen to greater heights than most - Joseph was the spiritual advisor and finance minister to an Egyptian Pharaoh - no insignificant title, especially amongst one of the most xenophobic, elitist and self-centered civilizations of the ancient world. He is the only non-Egyptian I can think of believed to have a pyramid of his own and there are even claims that his line may have replaced the Pharaohnic line of the Old Kingdom. And Old Israel/Judah was no small place. In Solomon's time, they were big enough for Sheeba and Babylon to take notice. The First Temple had more gold and silver than is known to have existed in the Middle East at the time, they must have got it from somewhere. It didn't just appear. (They were traders, so it's obvious where they got it.) Oh, and the Jews didn't conquer Ethiopia twice by being wimps, either.

(Ethiopia? Yes, Ethiopia. The last-known place that Ark went through and the home of the Falasha, the Ethiopian Jews.)

I have a lot of sympathy for the hardships of any individual or civilization, but let's be honest here, they've a few things to atone, and many others are also deserving of sympathy (and criticism). Very very few nations can lay claim to being faultless and innocent. Indeed, I know of only two, and those claims are uncertain. On what grounds, then, are you asking me - or anyone else then - to put one nation above all others?

On religious grounds?

Not good enough. There are as many sects of Orthodox Jews who believe Israel is an abomination on the grounds that God did not lead His people there and that the prerequisite prophecies are unfulfilled as believe that Israel is a requirement of God. Are you telling me that your eyes are so keen that you can see which Jewish religious leaders are in touch with God and which are not? No? Then you don't know, you're only guessing.

Should Israel be left to be attacked, then? Well, if you can't prove that an attack would even happen or is even likely, the question is meaningless. However, I'll answer it anyway. No. Nor should ANY OTHER NATION be left to be attacked, including by Israel, even if it is in retaliation. Israel destroyed many civilian buildings in violation of the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and many other international laws and obligations. They should be expected to rebuild those structures, by their bare hands if need be. If that means dodging cluster bombs, used in violation of International law, maybe they'll invest in some cleanup equipment and rid the battle zone of all the old munitions.

In the end, it's all very simple. there are many there who need to learn how to be civilized, and not all of them speak Arabic. I don't see it as the job of the US to make only one side do the learning, I see it as the job of the US and other nations to ensure that ALL learn to coexist in peace not pieces.

Does that mean imposing such education on others in the Middle East? Certainly, but without bias and without prejudice. Mankind is singular. Know it.

So you'd advocate appeasement in every situation, eh?

Well, World War I was started by partisans in Yugoslavia killing a violent, rabid dictator. Germany, Russia and Great Britain got involved purely for opportunistic empire-building purposes. Not a single one of them had any justification for involvement, they were in it for the glory and the gains.

Something like 660,000 died in three days of fighting at the Somme. Net gain: about three yards. Flanders was not much better. In both cases, the environment was so badly wrecked, the only thing that could grow for many years were red poppies. (Hence their importance in remembrance.)

Appeasement? No. Mass slaughter of humans and the wrecking of the environment? I'd have to pass on that as well. One Charge of the Light Brigade was quite enough, thank you.

Besides, Mahatma Gandhi kicked out the entire British empire without a single shot being fired. He was no saint and he had no miraculous powers. Anything he could do, you can do.

Now, is there ever a justification for force? That's a tough one and I'll skip it. You'll see why in a moment. Is there ever a way to use force and keep to humanitarian principles? Yes, but it's not easy.

Can I give an example? Sure! Be glad to. I'll use the example of the attack on the Shell Building in Denmark, World War II.

At the time, the Gestapo had seized control of the building and had adopted it for interrogation of resistance leaders and the keeping of records. Fully aware of the possibility of a complete collapse of the entire resistance movement in Europe, the RAF came up with possibly the most daring raid ever attempted other than the Dambusters.

A squadron of Mosquito fighter-bombers were kitted out with extra fuel tanks and concussion bombs. Their mission? To skim low over the building at extremely high speed, dropping the bombs into the interrogation and records rooms, destroying all information. The shockwave would then blow open the cell doors, allowing the prisoners to escape.

It worked. Something like 98% of the 150 or so prisoners managed to escape more-or-less unharmed - I think one got a broken leg, jumping from a second-story window. The records were completely destroyed and the Gestapo's interrogation facility was reduced to scrap. (Amazingly, one prisoner who was being interrogated at the time was amongst those who escaped.)

That is a use of force I can respect and admire for its clear desire to minimize any loss of life, even under the most difficult and dangerous of situations. To skim within mere feet of the rooftops at speeds approaching sound at night with no night vision and I'm pretty certain no RADAR either, to risk their lives at such unbelievable odds in the absurd hope that they might directly save the lives of others... Today, they'd probably just bomb the s**t out of the building and the square mile round it. In most wars they would. Resistance fighters had a short life-expectancy and were replaceable. Pilots and aircraft were a bit more valuable. But in this one case, they risked many lives to save a few.

They considered that worthwhile and they were right.

If you fought every war like that, aiming to NOT kill, then I'd probably have far less objection to it, even if zero casualties proved impossible.

iraq is a good starting point of proof. the government has already lied once. more proof lays in that the government is trying to illustrate iran as a purely religious lead state with a dictator in charge. the fact of the matter being that sharia is losing power in iran, ahmadinejad was, in fact, democratically elected and reform is slowly coming from within iran. as opposed to saudi arabia which is the exact opposite.


the picture the government tries to paint contradicts reality....hence...they're lying through their teeth.

if you want threats to israel, start off with saudi arabia and pakistan.

The refusal to recognise Israel by Hamas? The several times that Arab nations have attacked israel en masse? Its less about what they want, and more about what they actually have DONE, and the declarations they make out in the open.



Yet, despite all of this, the Jews have survived and will survive. They're a tenacious bunch, they've endured greater calamities than most. They've also risen to greater heights than most - Joseph was the spiritual advisor and finance minister to an Egyptian Pharaoh - no insignificant title, especially amongst one of the most xenophobic, elitist and self-centered civilizations of the ancient world. He is the only non-Egyptian I can think of believed to have a pyramid of his own and there are even claims that his line may have replaced the Pharaohnic line of the Old Kingdom. And Old Israel/Judah was no small place. In Solomon's time, they were big enough for Sheeba and Babylon to take notice. The First Temple had more gold and silver than is known to have existed in the Middle East at the time, they must have got it from somewhere. It didn't just appear. (They were traders, so it's obvious where they got it.) Oh, and the Jews didn't conquer Ethiopia twice by being wimps, either.

(Ethiopia? Yes, Ethiopia. The last-known place that Ark went through and the home of the Falasha, the Ethiopian Jews.)

I have a lot of sympathy for the hardships of any individual or civilization, but let's be honest here, they've a few things to atone, and many others are also deserving of sympathy (and criticism). Very very few nations can lay claim to being faultless and innocent. Indeed, I know of only two, and those claims are uncertain. On what grounds, then, are you asking me - or anyone else then - to put one nation above all others?

On religious grounds?

Not good enough. There are as many sects of Orthodox Jews who believe Israel is an abomination on the grounds that God did not lead His people there and that the prerequisite prophecies are unfulfilled as believe that Israel is a requirement of God. Are you telling me that your eyes are so keen that you can see which Jewish religious leaders are in touch with God and which are not? No? Then you don't know, you're only guessing.

Should Israel be left to be attacked, then? Well, if you can't prove that an attack would even happen or is even likely, the question is meaningless. However, I'll answer it anyway. No. Nor should ANY OTHER NATION be left to be attacked, including by Israel, even if it is in retaliation. Israel destroyed many civilian buildings in violation of the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and many other international laws and obligations. They should be expected to rebuild those structures, by their bare hands if need be. If that means dodging cluster bombs, used in violation of International law, maybe they'll invest in some cleanup equipment and rid the battle zone of all the old munitions.

In the end, it's all very simple. there are many there who need to learn how to be civilized, and not all of them speak Arabic. I don't see it as the job of the US to make only one side do the learning, I see it as the job of the US and other nations to ensure that ALL learn to coexist in peace not pieces.

Does that mean imposing such education on others in the Middle East? Certainly, but without bias and without prejudice. Mankind is singular. Know it.[/quote]

Its quite obvious what the problem is. The "Holy Land." Everyone wants it, everyone thinks or claims they have a right to it, no-one can agree to share it. The israelis are just the latest in a long line of people who happened to be parked right on top of it. Best solution? Give it to the Buddhists to run. Everyone else can share. Perhaps a post-war Berlin style power-share between the claimants? And everyone has done a bit of ethnic cleansing in those parts at one time or another, so its probably a moot point.

My main issue with the whole thing is that, (although Israel has done unacceptable things) they have not called for the complete eradication of every muslim etc. They dont go in for suicide bombings, and they arent trying to force their religion on the rest of the world. Ergo I see them as less of a threat to global stability than their Islamic opposites.

They have had the chance to capture and keep vast areas of the surrounding territories, and have not. That to me suggests they are not into expansionism. Im sure that, if left unmolested in a defined area, they would be quite happy to just stay there and get on with life.

I think what I like about this the most is that Bush is adding $63 billion to our already fat debt.

Which is better, suicide bombings or killing people with a tank or a long drawn out suffocation that the palestinian nation appears to be going through ?

Jewish people ? Don't you bloody say anything bad about them because they have been persecuted enough by Hitler ... are you a nazi fascist ?

unfortunately, this sums the whole argument kinda up... the jews are poor and innocent, beleagured by bloodthirsty arabs. BS.

nor is the moral status of those participants this simple (what about a certain israeli general who later became prime minister who proclaimed that by the end of his work, the world wont even know a state called palestine existed? thats some ariel sharon for you... if i was a state with muslim culture, id be majorly annoyed, too, having this kind of pretentious sock-puppet in my backyard. israel isnt exactly playing peace either) neither has israel been very proficient at "pwning them". their wars since egypt have been among the closest calls in military history, with the wind still turning against them. the situation right now is a not-quite stalemate, as palestine just doesnt have enough organisation to have an army opposable to israel, and the israeli military still pretends to live in the 60s. they have no way of successfully dealing with guerilla and propaganda warfare.

so, to sum it up: we have a problem that can only be solved by declaring two independent states of israel and palestine, proper diplomatic relations and all that. this problem is not solved by suicide-bombing and this problem is not solved by playing the pretentious warlord with big brother covering their backs (dont you get that this is a highly insulting act to all involved states?). there is no way that israeli politics can continue on any course that treats palestine anything else than a neighboring state. there is no way israel can play the military warlord, turning water and electricity on and off for palestine civilians at will, there is no way israeli military individuals can sell weapons to the al-aqsa brigades and similar organisations.
israel uses the usa's cover to further the war with their political behaviour. and then you guys wonder that you managed to get the whole middle east against you? and dare to call it "poor jews hunted down by barbaric arabs"?