Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Palomar · 2003-06-09 14:10:31

Modern parenting, by Robert Dyck....
Why treat the other countries of the world as children that you must parent? If you see a friend from high school mismanaging his money, what do you do? If you see him screwing up his job and get fired, con a relative into giving him an old van, then when the van breaks down beg you to pay for a tow truck and repairs, do you pay for it all? Do you try to be a parent and spank him? I do have a friend who did all this. I just refused to help when the van broke down. I would give him a ride somewhere, and when he got the vehicle back to his own garage I offered my humble service to help tinker with it, but I did not pay for anything. If a friend is to learn how to be an adult, sometimes he must be responsible for himself. If you treat someone as a child, they will continue to act as a child; if you treat someone as an adult, they will learn to act as an adult. One of the secrets of parenting (especially teenagers) is to give them just a little more responsibility than they are ready for; then let them grow into it. When dealing with someone who is a peer and not your child at all, often the best thing you can do is nothing, just let them learn from the consequences of their own actions. What I'm trying to say is don't try to "parent" the planet.

*Excellent reply, Robert. But I'm sure it'll go right over the head of a certain person here (who shall go unnamed).

Regarding "don't try to 'parent' the planet,' a group of people I occasionally hang out with have a favorite saying: "Stupidity is painful." The trouble is that stupidity, unlike intelligence, seems -not- to have a limit.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-06-09 14:50:36

Modern parenting, by Robert Dyck....
Why treat the other countries of the world as children that you must parent? If you see a friend from high school mismanaging his money, what do you do? If you see him screwing up his job and get fired, con a relative into giving him an old van, then when the van breaks down beg you to pay for a tow truck and repairs, do you pay for it all? Do you try to be a parent and spank him? I do have a friend who did all this. I just refused to help when the van broke down. I would give him a ride somewhere, and when he got the vehicle back to his own garage I offered my humble service to help tinker with it, but I did not pay for anything. If a friend is to learn how to be an adult, sometimes he must be responsible for himself. If you treat someone as a child, they will continue to act as a child; if you treat someone as an adult, they will learn to act as an adult. One of the secrets of parenting (especially teenagers) is to give them just a little more responsibility than they are ready for; then let them grow into it. When dealing with someone who is a peer and not your child at all, often the best thing you can do is nothing, just let them learn from the consequences of their own actions. What I'm trying to say is don't try to "parent" the planet.

Okay, what if it is your sister's husband (rather than a high school buddy) who gambled/drank/squandered his money and needs the van to get to work?

Your own mother (or spouse) is crying all the time because her grandchildren are going hungry? Be tough and don't help and your mother can't visit you without tears. Help and you are in the mess you describe. Give "too much" responsibility and the PLO or IDF won't suffer, innocent children will suffer.

Tough love works only when innocents don't suffer the consequences. The US is the ONLY nation with any hope of solving the Meddle East. We cannot refuse to try.

Palomar · 2003-06-09 15:20:48

Tough love works only when innocents don't suffer the consequences.

*I can't think of any situation wherein there would not be at least 1 innocent [victim/bystander] in the mix. Risks, consequences and options would have to be taken into consideration for each unique situation, before a decision would be made.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark here, but "tough love" is the least of worries, relative to this. Boys are handed assault rifles, etc., and taught how to use them and encouraged TO use them when they're all of 8 years old (perhaps even younger). Pals boys are groomed and brainwashed into believing being a suicide bomber is the most wonderful thing they could ever aspire to. There is something fundamentally wrong with a culture which teaches their **LITTLE BOYS** that it's okay and DESIRABLE to commit suicide "for the cause," when they could find reasonable alternatives to stopping the bloodshed for once and for all, instead of behaving as though "it's a given" the conflict will be unceasing and unending. It reminds me of P.D. Ouspensky's first encounter with Gurdjieff, who told Ouspensky the following true event in his life: Gurdjieff was a solider in WW I. A task he was assigned was boxing and shipping wooden prostheses for soldier amputees on the war fields. He looked at all these artificial limbs, and it occured to him that his fellow soldiers were basically like automatons; in fact, that most of society operated in an automaton-like fashion: We will have wars. We must send soldiers to fight these wars. It will always be this way. Our soldiers will lose limbs in war, so we must provide prosthetics. Soldiers will use the prosthetics because they accept that their limbs had to be sacrificed for the cause of inevitable, unavoidable war. The scope of it all struck Gurdjieff like a ton of bricks falling on his head. Surely it's not just Russians and Germans who can fall prey to the "IT MUST BE, IT CANNOT CHANGE" mentality!

It's a vicious cycle over there, and I agree with Shaun that someone's going to have to, some day, be the bigger person and refuse to give into the desire for retaliation and vengeance. Yes, that's much much much much much easier said than done. But the other alternative is what we're seeing now.

I once read something in a book, about 12 years ago, which altered my life in a very marked fashion: It dealt with the concept of "agreement" and the power changing one's "agreements." The Israelis and Pals are agreeing to be vicious enemies...they need to change their agreement.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 15:27:19

Okay, what if it is your sister's husband (rather than a high school buddy) who gambled/drank/squandered his money and needs the van to get to work?
Your own mother (or spouse) is crying all the time because her grandchildren are going hungry? Be tough and don't help and your mother can't visit you without tears. Help and you are in the mess you describe. Give "too much" responsibility and the PLO or IDF won't suffer, innocent children will suffer.
Tough love works only when innocents don't suffer the consequences. The US is the ONLY nation with any hope of solving the Meddle East. We cannot refuse to try.

Ok, the friend I'm quoting is not from high school, he is a few younger than me but he is somewhere around 29 and has a wife and children. He is on welfare and living in government subsidized housing. His mother gave him the van, and he coerced her to pay for the tow truck and repairs. She is given that exact threat: keep giving him things or the grandchildren will suffer. I think she should take back the van, and not give him anything more. The van is still in her name because if she had given it to him welfare would deduct its value from his welfare allowance. I think she also paid for the vehicle insurance. Would the children suffer if she did take it back? To a point, yes. Welfare will pay for housing, utilities, food, and not really much more. My friend's wife sews clothing for the children (she is a good seamstress). The children would have difficulty attending special functions like church if he had to take the bus. They wouldn't starve, but would complain. The complaints of his own children would be effective pressure to get his act together. It may also take him an hour to get to work by bus, but that is part of the lesson.

With a nation the stakes are higher. Financial mismanagement can lead to high taxes if mild, economic collapse of bad. Diplomatic incompetency can lead to war. Picking a fight with your neighbours to look good in the eyes of voters can lead to those neighbours attacking. What will those voters think of you after the battle? Perhaps it's best to make peace and be polite to your neighbours. Demagoguery can result in factions initiating a terrorist attack against your neighbours without authorization, so perhaps the domestic rhetoric should be toned down. Both Israel and Palestine need to learn this lesson. As long as we bail them out, I don't think they'll learn. If the U.S. places demands with a giant threat, then the U.S. will be feared rather than consequences of their own actions. The demagoguery that perpetuates the hatred to the next generation will continue.

clark · 2003-06-10 10:57:11

Both Israel and Palestine need to learn this lesson. As long as we bail them out, I don't think they'll learn.

Robert, I understand you analogy. I see the inherent wisdom of this approach. However, you must agree that it it would be unwise to implement such a policy in this real-world situation.

We are not dealing with some schoolkids, or some dead beats who can't seem to get their act together. We are dealing with millions of people who each feel they have a legitimate claim for retailation and for self-defense. We ar dealing with a social structure in place that allows individual blood lust to be coordinated into massive reprisals.

In other words, an Isreali or a Palestinan citizen is killed, those who wish to seek vengence for the act have a national system set up to help seek out vengence- either a military, or a "suicide" brigade. This reality requires that pressure is exerted from above- not below, as your sane advice would require.

Obviously individuals need to come to their senses- and by and large, most individuals do. But groups require something else. It requires interaction. It requires us.

Now, if we follow the mantra of 'let them sort it out for themselves', we run the very real, and grave risk, of suffering for their inability to come to their collective senses.

It's like if your neighbor just dumbed his garbage on his front lawn. Yeah, HE has to live in it, but you end up living NEXT to it- and not to mention EVERYONE else that has to live downwind of it. Is it really in everyone's best interest to let this person come to their senses? Or is it better to intervene, and try to prevent a REAL problem before it happens?

I have outlined briefly the horrors that might await if we pull out, or choose a 'hands off' approach. How can anyone rationaly suggest that the risk of not being involved is less than taking a proactive stance in the situation?

Things there can get very ugly, very quickly.

I also find it funny that the words of Mr. Jesus are making the rounds in this thread. "Turn the other cheek" and all. I always had an easier time accepting the message, as opposed to accepting the messanger. There is wisdom in the darndest places.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-10 11:41:20

Well, we have another example in real life. Today's story from the CBC is Abbas denounces Israeli 'terrorist attack'.

Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles at a car carrying Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a high-profile member of the Islamic militant group [Hamas], injuring him and killing two others. ... Hamas quickly threatened revenge for the attack. Hundreds of the group's supporters rushed to the hospital, chanting "Jihad will continue." Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, said all Israeli civilians will be considered targets in future attacks. ... 27 people were wounded in the attack, including Rantisi, three of his guards and his son. ... Rantisi appeared on Al-Jazeera television from his hospital bed shortly after the attack and vowed to continue attacks on Israel "until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land."

This is part of the reason why I claim both sides are behaving badly. Terrorist attacks by both sides are continuing, and each attack leads to more hatred and vows to escalate the violence. This case is a terrorist attack by Israel using helicopter gunships. Ideally, leaders in Israel and Palestine would say *ENOUGH* and just stop the violence, but that isn't happening. I see only two solutions: the U.S. goes in and destroys Israeli helicopters to prevent any future attacks, or just let Israel and Palestine kill each other in unlimited warfare until both sides are war weary and the intransigent leaders on both sides are killed off. If the U.S. attacks Israel, that could cause a political backlash in the U.S. and would result in the Meddle East becoming dependant on the U.S. to enforce ongoing peace.

clark · 2003-06-10 11:52:36

And Bush denounced the attack.

Ideally, leaders in Israel and Palestine would say *ENOUGH* and just stop the violence, but that isn't happening.

Not *ENOUGH* people are calling for an end to the violence. Perhaps part of the problem is rooted in their politcal system, which allows smaller groups more power when forming the governing party. These smaller groups can effectrively stunt the will of the majority.

But it is a secondary issue.

Our involvement in this conflict is neccessary in order to exert pressure and influence the situation to such a degree that a solution is found. It is in ours, and everyone else's interest that the fighting stop, and the tension reduced. Our involvement will work towards those ends. If we are not involved, we cannot work towards ANY ends.

While we may disagree with the actions of either party in this conflict, we must realize that these people are living in a war zone and under a constant state of attack. That changes your world view a bit, and the environment will dictate what is and isn't 'rationale behaviour'.

Who are they targeting? Civilians, or leaders of organizations who have rejected peace talks and vowed to continue attacks on Isreali civilains?

Please also realize, everyone, if Isreal becomes unrestrained, there will be a massacare. We are talking about a country that defeated several nations, on several fronts, in a handful of days. Their actions are remarkably restrained given their military capability.

Palomar · 2003-06-10 12:28:12

Well, we have another example in real life. Today's story from the CBC is Abbas denounces Israeli 'terrorist attack'.
Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles at a car carrying Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a high-profile member of the Islamic militant group [Hamas], injuring him and killing two others. ... Hamas quickly threatened revenge for the attack. Hundreds of the group's supporters rushed to the hospital, chanting "Jihad will continue." Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, said all Israeli civilians will be considered targets in future attacks. ... 27 people were wounded in the attack, including Rantisi, three of his guards and his son. ... Rantisi appeared on Al-Jazeera television from his hospital bed shortly after the attack and vowed to continue attacks on Israel "until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land."
This is part of the reason why I claim both sides are behaving badly. Terrorist attacks by both sides are continuing, and each attack leads to more hatred and vows to escalate the violence.

*Okay, I know how simplistic this is going to sound. But I've often wondered just how much the media attention, particularly that of Western media sources, serves to fuel the hostilities. People tend to grandstand, posture, "act out", etc., even more when they know they are getting lots of attention; it's like a "come-on" to them.

I'd be curious to see how much the ruckus -might- die down if the cameras, microphones, etc., were suddenly switched off and foreign correspondents sent home or elsewhere.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-06-10 12:40:47

There was one battle where Arab forces attacked in force at a location where only a handful of Israeli solders where there to stop them. The soldiers were told to hold the Arab forces in a pass, and sacrifice their lives doing so. No one thought they could hold the Arab force long enough for a major Israeli force to arrive. If the Arab force got through they would have destroyed a major Israeli city, crippling Israel. The Israeli military sent a plane with an atomic bomb to take out the attacking countries capital. The plane was airborne and on its way to deliver the bomb. To everyone's surprise, the handful of Israeli solders were able to contain the Arab force until the Israeli main force arrived. Those soldiers were heroes, but it demonstrates Israel does not have as much restraint as you imply. They did order a nuclear strike, and the only reason the plane was recalled was that the Israeli main force arrived to stop the Arab assault.

So you're justifying attacking a Palestinian leader on his way to the peace talks. Furthermore the attack occurred on a public street with dozens of innocent civilians present, and a couple dozen were injured. That sort of justification is what perpetuates war.

If the war is restricted to just Palestine and Israel, the guerrilla warfare will continue. If the Western countries pull out of the region, there will be a total war between Israel and all Arab countries resulting in a massacre on all sides. If the West stayed out, the result would either be complete Israeli victory or Arab victory and the Arabs not giving the land to Palestine. Israeli victory is doubtful considering the number of Arab countries, but as you said they have been successful before. Either way Palestine would cease to exist. The threat to completely pull out should shock the Palestinian government into realizing it must control its own factions. Of course, Israel must also cease these attacks on Palestinians; they really are no different than the Palestinian execution of the Israeli defence minister. The Palestinian government will never be able to get control of its own factions as long as these Israeli terrorist attacks continue. The Israeli government retaliated for the death of their finance minister by occupying several Palestinian cities. An equivalent level of retaliation is therefore justified for this Israeli attack.

Tit-for-Tat, an eye-for-an-eye, a death-for-a-death. Joshua Ben Joseph also known as Jesus Christ attempted to resolve exactly this sort of thing 2,000 years ago. The region has more powerful weapons, but the culture appears the same; his advice is still pertinent. Rather than reforming the culture and leading the Hebrew religious leaders to impart a message of tolerance to stop the violence, his leadership resulted in a splinter faith that became dominant in Europe. The faith itself left the region, but came back during the crusades to inspire new warfare. The ethics of tolerance and peace are excellent, but religious zeal is incompatible. I don?t think a new religious leader could help even if another Jesus were to appear.

clark · 2003-06-10 12:47:16

I'm sure such an event would lead to a reduction in violence, only because no one will be there to document either sides exploits.

Isreal can act in a more unrestrained manner since there is less attention cast on them as they continue their policies of assaination. It will strengthen the Isreali position to no end.

Palestinan interest will be affected though, as they lose the ability to use their suicide brigades to garner attention towards their plight.

It would also mean that the leaders of the western nations will have a harder time explaining to their population why 'we' need to be involved with someone elses conflict. It becomes easier for people to stick their heads in the sand since there is little to no information about what is going on.

The population of these western nations will then have to rely on their leaders, and what little information is at hand (arguably from partisan and government sources) to make the decisions on what our nations should do. It then becomes extremly difficult as a citizen of said nation to hold the eleceted leaders accountable, or tell them what we should be doing.

Knowing is better than not knowing, in almost any circumstance. Just as being involved is usually better than not being involved.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-10 12:54:48

I'm sure such an event would lead to a reduction in violence, only because no one will be there to document either sides exploits.

I didn't follow this jump. You are saying that pulling all military forces out and ceasing to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs would somehow result in an absence of anyone to document what happens? How is that? Not all media reporters are embedded; there are reporters at locations the U.S. military is not.

Oops; just saw Cindy's message. I agree, we can't stop the media coverage. Citizens have to be involved and political leaders have to be held accountable. That is only possible if citizens are informed.

clark · 2003-06-10 12:58:37

There was one battle where Arab forces attacked in force at a location where only a handful of Israeli solders where there to stop them.

I am not familiar with this action. But it would seem that Isreal was acting in response to a threat. In the end, they still chose not to obliterate an arab capital. Put another way, when the Towers attacked, many in the US were more than ready to nuke anyone having to do with the attack. Judge people by what they do, not on what they plan.

So you're justifying attacking a Palestinian leader on his way to the peace talks.

No, I am not. I am explaining their behaviour and the thought process behind it. We may not agree with it, but it is arguably a justifiable action. It should also be noted that the leader WAS NOT on the way to peace talks. And the attack was carried out AFTER a joint attack the previous day by Hammas and two other terroist groups.

from latimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news....adlines

Hamas participated Sunday in a rare joint operation with Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades to kill four Israeli soldiers at an army outpost in Gaza. Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis in bombings and shootings in the fighting.

Robert,

If the Western countries pull out of the region, there will be a total war between Israel and all Arab countries resulting in a massacre on all sides. If the West stayed out, the result would either be complete Israeli victory or Arab victory and the Arabs not giving the land to Palestine.

If the western nations pull out, then either the Arabs or Isreal will win. If the Arabs win, we will see another Holocaust perpetrated upon the Jewish people. If we the Isreali's win, we see a a massacare from nuclear obliteration.

The Arabs and Palestianans want nothing more than for the Western Nations to pull out- they then can take on Isreal unimpeded.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-10 13:18:51

Your link to the LA Times article requires a subscription, but I was able to find a CBC story about the same event: Sharon warns Palestinians after firefight leaves seven dead

This sort of Tit-for-Tat again leaves me thinking "Why the hell are we getting involved with these people!?" The never ending parade of atrocities by both sides leaves me wanting to leave them to kill each other off until there is no one left to fight. The survivors can resume peace talks. The meek will literally inherit the region.

clark · 2003-06-10 13:31:39

I understand and feel your aggravation Robert, but I believe it is born from a feeling of impotence in this situation. Ultimetly, peace must be decided by both parties, it cannot be force upon them. What you have been saying speaks to that.

But our reality is that *we* cannot walk away from this situation hoping that these two parties will resolve the issue, one way or another. We must make sure it is resolved in a *specific* way that avoids unnneccasry death or chaos.

The stakes are high for all parties, and we are not to be excluded from this game because our interets are exceedingly high. The situation is such that any number of actions, by either side, can lead to an unmitigated catastrophe of global proportions.

I am not overstating this situation.

Why dosen't the US get involved with everyone's else pet problem? Becuase a majority of the worlds problems are localized events whose outcome can't effect us. The ones that can, or are perceived to be, we get involved. Thus our involvement.

If things go nuclear there, we are talking about the collapse of the global economy. We are talking about Depression-Era unemployment in all of the western nations. We are talking about the collapse of world financial markets, which will result in the collapse of the economic underpinnings of every major industrialized nation.

How can we be responsible to the future by shriking our neccesssary involvement in this situation?

How many times has America lost out becuase of an isolationist attitude? It isn't the answer.

Bill White · 2003-06-10 14:01:50

I must add to clark's observations the observation that a great many influential US citizens care quite personally about what happens in Israel.

The domestic political aspect cannot be ignored either.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-10 14:02:03

I understand and feel your aggravation Robert, but I believe it is born from a feeling of impotence in this situation. Ultimetly, peace must be decided by both parties, it cannot be force upon them. What you have been saying speaks to that.
But our reality is that *we* cannot walk away from this situation hoping that these two parties will resolve the issue, one way or another. We must make sure it is resolved in a *specific* way that avoids unnneccasry death or chaos.
The stakes are high for all parties, and we are not to be excluded from this game because our interets are exceedingly high. The situation is such that any number of actions, by either side, can lead to an unmitigated catastrophe of global proportions.
I am not overstating this situation.
Why dosen't the US get involved with everyone's else pet problem? Becuase a majority of the worlds problems are localized events whose outcome can't effect us. The ones that can, or are perceived to be, we get involved. Thus our involvement.
If things go nuclear there, we are talking about the collapse of the global economy. We are talking about Depression-Era unemployment in all of the western nations. We are talking about the collapse of world financial markets, which will result in the collapse of the economic underpinnings of every major industrialized nation.
How can we be responsible to the future by shriking our neccesssary involvement in this situation?
How many times has America lost out becuase of an isolationist attitude? It isn't the answer.

Yes, I am saying that peace must be decided by both parties involved, it cannot be forced upon them. I am also saying that you must treat the parties involved as peers, not children. You cannot dictate the specific way, or the parties involved will not buy into it. Furthermore, they will be dependant on you to resolve every future bickering that comes up.

As for "unmitigated catastrophe of global proportions", why would it have to extend beyond the Middle East? As long as all outside parties stay out of it, the war would not extend to a world war. Arab countries have a lot of oil, but the tar sands of Alberta have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, it's just more expensive to extract. Economic collapse in the Middle East would make things more expensive for the rest of the world, but I think you overstate its importance to the world economy.

I am not asking you to shirk your responsibility, what I am saying is this is not America?s responsibility. Meddling in this affair is perpetuating it.

Palomar · 2003-06-10 14:51:36

*If worse -doesn't- come to worst, I wonder if they will maybe, say in a few decades (and hopefully not even that long), just get plain sick and #)@!%*^ing tired of it all, and can/will reach a truce out of sheer weariness.

But somehow, I doubt it.

--Cindy

Algol · 2003-06-10 18:06:37

(1) Israel is the closest thing to a Western style democracy in the Middle East . . .

Its probably worth noting that there were a good number more, peacefull, freely elected democracies in the middle east (and indeed in other countries around the world) before the U.S/C.I.A started 'meddling' during the cold-war.

When i say meddling, of course i mean toppling governments and installing puppet dictators - popularly known by the euphamism 'regime change' nowadays.

nick

Echus_Chasma · 2003-06-11 01:55:22

*If worse -doesn't- come to worst, I wonder if they will maybe, say in a few decades (and hopefully not even that long), just get plain sick and #)@!%*^ing tired of it all, and can/will reach a truce out of sheer weariness.
But somehow, I doubt it.
--Cindy

I also doubt it.

Israel and the Jews have pretty much never had peace in their entire history. But I believe that if there was a full-scale war then Israel will win. It says in the Bible that after Israel was re-formed as a country there will be hell to pay (no pun intended) for the enemies of Israel and they will be destoried.

By the way,
hello people, I haven't had much time to check the forums in ages, but I will try to login and post more often.

clark · 2003-06-11 08:46:24

I am also saying that you must treat the parties involved as peers, not children.

We are ruled by childs logic though.

We live in a world where 'adults' have come to the conclusion that peace can only be secured through the threat of violence or the threat of annihalitation. Is this how we would expect 'adults' to settle their disputes with neighbors? We live in a world where the entire truth cannot be understood, or accepted by most people. Where ideas and issues have to be morphed into calls of actions based on fear and ignorance. We might expect an adult to be stable, to be informed- but the world we live in is not. It is filled with people with too little information, or too little attention to deal with a lot of the complex issues.

This isn't arrogance, this is a reality check. t's been reality for all of recorded history, and nothing has fundamentaly changed any of this.

This suggestion that we can somehow turn our backs on those who do not agree to 'get along' and not suffer the consquences of their actions is a fantasy. I would love to believe it were true, or even possible, but it assuradly not.

You cannot dictate the specific way, or the parties involved will not buy into it.

Yes, we can. Have you ever been subject to a punishment or a decision by a third party? Have you ever been judged? It happens everyday throughout the world- one person sits above another and *dictates* the course of action for a final resolution to avoid violence.

. Furthermore, they will be dependant on you to resolve every future bickering that comes up.

I don't agree, but better thjat then nuclear armageddon. Or is the obliteration of millions an acceptable price?

As for "unmitigated catastrophe of global proportions", why would it have to extend beyond the Middle East?

Becuase we are an inter connected world, more so for the industrialized nations. If the Suez is renderded useless, the only way to ship things is around the cape of Africa. Disruption of the flow of goods leads to all manner of problems for the world- I need only point to the recent Airlininer problems, and the strike at the Port of Los Angeles to demonstrate the effects. Then the destruction of oil production will drive up the cost of fuel- Canada may have lots oil shale, but it is exspensive to process, and it certainly cannot replace the Middle East. WHile the US may come through it well, other countries certainly will not. Japan's stagnation will become a contraction, then a depression. Europe will be in the same boat, but have to deal with fallout as well. Suddenly, no foreign markets exsist as nations close their borders to protect domestic industries. People start calling in their loans- the money isn't there, it never was. It's just a bunch of numbers now. FDIC fails. Governments start defaulting on their loans... we are in this together, one big dysfunctional family, together.

Economic collapse in the Middle East would make things more expensive for the rest of the world, but I think you overstate its importance to the world economy.

OPEC dictates world growth. The cost of energy is the basic unit of cost for everything. Cheap oil makes the world go round. I'm sorry if you disagree, but it is true.

Palomar · 2003-06-11 09:30:21

By the way,
hello people, I haven't had much time to check the forums in ages, but I will try to login and post more often.

*Nice to see you here again, Echus. I'm hoping our friend Soph will return soon as well.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-06-11 13:41:41

You cannot dictate the specific way, or the parties involved will not buy into it.
Yes, we can. Have you ever been subject to a punishment or a decision by a third party? Have you ever been judged? It happens everyday throughout the world- one person sits above another and *dictates* the course of action for a final resolution to avoid violence.

You keep forgetting, the United States of America is just one country in a world of hundreds of countries. There are 191 members of the U.N. right now. The U.S. may be the richest and have the most powerful military, but it is still just one country. In a small town, do you expect the richest individual to dictate to all other citizens of the town? It is exactly the same thing; the U.S. cannot dictate to the other member states of the international community. Rules governing behaviour between countries have to be formed by an international body. Imposed resolution of conflicts such as that in the Middle East must be imposed by a democratically elected body representing all the countries of the world, or at least all the countries over which the organization has jurisdiction. Since 1945 that has been the United Nations. The U.N. must represent all member nations, not just follow the dictates of the richest member. That is one of the basic principles of democracy. I shouldn't have to lecture to a citizen of the U.S. what democracy is or how it works, but apparently I do. This does mean that the Middle East conflict must be resolved by the parties involved, or at most a resolution imposed by the U.N., not the U.S. or any coalition of other countries.

You may desire use of the Suez Canal, but you don't own it. Cessation of function of the Suez Canal may make shipping to Europe inconvenient, but Egypt owns it. Likewise, you may feel you depend on your neighbourhood grocery store but it is up to the store owner to operate and maintain it. If he/she feels like closing the store for a company picnic, then there is nothing you can do. You may have to drive several miles farther to purchase groceries, but you can't demand how the store owner runs his/her store. If the store owner mismanages the store so it closes for bankruptcy then you can hope someone will buy it and operate it reliably. You cannot chop a hole through the door and just take groceries at the point of a gun. Until the store opens under new management, you can only drive the several miles to shop at another store. If the store is bought by a land developer who builds office space, then you're just screwed. Likewise if the countries in the region mismanage regional security, all you can do is sail around the horn of Africa.

Palomar · 2003-06-11 15:38:54

Just some quotes:
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
[the israeli state]"it MUST invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."
Diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956.

*Wow. Well, if those sources are legit...geez, what can I say?

You know, the U.S. government has been checking the backgrounds/cash flow of Arab-based/oriented charity organizations, to see if the money is being funneled to Arab terrorist organizations...some have. I wonder if these same sorts of checks are being placed on Israeli-based/oriented charities? I do not know the official name, but there is at least 1 Christian charity in the U.S. which is for the benefit of Israelis. I was going to post this *prior to* BDG's post, by the way.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-11 15:51:20

You keep forgetting, the United States of America is just one country in a world of hundreds of countries. There are 191 members of the U.N. right now.

The current "road map" was created in unison, by the EU, Russia, US, and others. We are not alone in making these declarations as you might suggest Robert.

It is exactly the same thing; the U.S. cannot dictate to the other member states of the international community. Rules governing behaviour between countries have to be formed by an international body.

Let's see what we are dictating, shall we? Are we asking the parties for anything outrageous? Or are we asking for a peaceful resolution of conflict in order to avoid a major catastrophe? How exactly is the US being unfair in it's expectations?

Imposed resolution of conflicts such as that in the Middle East must be imposed by a democratically elected body representing all the countries of the world, or at least all the countries over which the organization has jurisdiction. Since 1945 that has been the United Nations.

I might buy that if it were not for the fact that the UN does not represent solely democraticaly elected governments. The worst offenders against humanity have had, or still have, a seat at the table that is supposedly equal to the most democratic countries. To suppose that we are somehow equals is silly.

. I shouldn't have to lecture to a member of the U.S. what democracy is or how it works, but apparently I do.

Thank you for taking the time to teach me about democracy. Now, that I understand, please explain how the UN exemplifies this idea of 'democracy'. Please.

You cannot chop a hole through the door and just take groceries at the point of a gun.

Your example hits the nail on the head, however you are failing to take 'reality' into account. I understand what you are getting at, but I and anyone else is perfectly justified in chopping a hole in the market if it means starvation otherwise. We are allowed to do what is neccessaryu when our lives are on the line. People may do as much as they wish so long as it dosen't hurt others. If a supermarket closes, and there is no other, we are at liberty to prevent the closure, or open it on our own accord. It is the most basic right we all have Robert- it's why stealing bread while starving is not a crime.

. Likewise if the countries in the region mismanage regional security, all you can do is sail around the horn of Africa.

All true, we have to live with the results. Which is exactly why we need to be involved to make sure the results are something WE ALL can live with.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-06-09 14:10:31

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#27 2003-06-09 14:50:36

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#28 2003-06-09 15:20:48

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#29 2003-06-09 15:27:19

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#30 2003-06-10 10:57:11

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#31 2003-06-10 11:41:20

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#32 2003-06-10 11:52:36

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#33 2003-06-10 12:28:12

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#34 2003-06-10 12:40:47

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#35 2003-06-10 12:47:16

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#36 2003-06-10 12:54:48

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#37 2003-06-10 12:58:37

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#38 2003-06-10 13:18:51

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#39 2003-06-10 13:31:39

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#40 2003-06-10 14:01:50

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#41 2003-06-10 14:02:03

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#42 2003-06-10 14:51:36

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#43 2003-06-10 18:06:37

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#44 2003-06-11 01:55:22

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#45 2003-06-11 08:46:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#46 2003-06-11 09:30:21

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#47 2003-06-11 13:41:41

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#48 2003-06-11 15:38:54

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#49 2003-06-11 15:51:20

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer