The US is totally under Israel's thumb

[Eki]

The US has vetoed a resolution condemning Israel, while all other members of the Security Council had approved it. Despicable. Maybe we should start to call the US TIRA (The Israel Republic of America).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12512732


Israeli settlements: US vetoes UNSC resolution

The US has vetoed an Arab resolution at the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.

All 14 other members of the Security Council backed the resolution, which had been endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

It was the first veto exercised by the Obama administration which had promised better relations with the Muslim world.

A Palestinian official said the talks process would now be "re-assessed".

Washington was under pressure from Israel and Congress, which has a strong pro-Israel lobby, to use its veto.

[Jag_Warrior]

Here's how it works in the U.S., Eki: if you're not pro-Zionist, then you're an anti-Semite. Any American not willing to send their last dime to Israel or send their kid to die for the Zionist cause is a Hitler lover. Anyone who wants to dispute that, read the Cranston Amendment and get back to me in due time.

TIRA. I like that. And yep, it's pretty much true.

[race aficionado]

Yep, put another white star in the US flag.

[Bob Riebe]

Well good for President Obama!

[Rollo]

All 14 other members of the Security Council backed the resolution, which had been endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00005201----000-.html
Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States.

Perhaps you can explain to me Eki why if the PLO have been declared to be a terrorist organization at law, why any resolution which has been endorsed by them should be voted for?

Secondly, the PLO which was rejected by both Lebanon and Jordan as having no right to exist, why should they be in control of a territory which should be rights be British?

[Eki]

Perhaps you can explain to me Eki why if the PLO have been declared to be a terrorist organization at law, why any resolution which has been endorsed by them should be voted for?


You could ask those 14 other Security Council members. I could declare you a terrorist, but would it make you a terrorist? I think the US is wrong in claiming the PLO to be a terrorist organization. It's PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), not PTO (Palestine Terrorist Organization).

[donKey jote]

It's PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), not PTO (Palestine Terrorist Organization).
gb_qHP7VaZE

[Rollo]

You could ask those 14 other Security Council members. I could declare you a terrorist, but would it make you a terrorist? I think the US is wrong in claiming the PLO to be a terrorist organization. It's PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), not PTO (Palestine Terrorist Organization).

It doesn't matter what its called really, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really "democratic" or "a people's republic" either. When you have the PLO, and its major factions with a stated purpose of "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." then what else would you like to call it.

The fact is that you don't like Israel and personally refuse to acknowlege either its history or the reason for its existance. That could be easily proven by simply bringing up previous threads.

[markabilly]

eki, is this the 200th thread you have either started or diverted from other threads into a hate jews rant for this year alone.....

[Roamy]

So what - we would do the same for our Euro friends. Let them build over here

[Eki]

So what - we would do the same for our Euro friends. Let them build over here
What if they build on your golf course?

[Roamy]

What if they build on your golf course?

when we run out of dirt then one would have to expect this. However flying over the Western US we have a lot of dirt.

[Eki]

when we run out of dirt then one would have to expect this. However flying over the Western US we have a lot of dirt.
The Zionists are funny that way, that even there's a lot of dirt in the Middle East too, they insist on building their settlement specifically in Jerusalem. So you can expect anything from them, even insisting to build on your golf course if someone tells them that the God has promised it to them.

[Rollo]

So you can expect anything from them, even insisting to build on your golf course if someone tells them that the God has promised it to them.

God being Great Britain I assume?

The "British Mandate for Palestine" - google it, do some research. Then tell me who "God" is based on your suggestion above.

[Eki]

God being Great Britain I assume?

The "British Mandate for Palestine" - google it, do some research. Then tell me who "God" is based on your suggestion above.
It could be anyone, real or imaginary.

[Rollo]

Tell me what the heck you're doing on the theoretical golf course in the first place? What gives you the right to be there anyway?

[Eki]

Tell me what the heck you're doing on the theoretical golf course in the first place? What gives you the right to be there anyway?
I'm defending the right of cats to do their business in the sand bunkers of golf courses.

[Rollo]

They shouldn't even be on the golf course in the first place.

[Eki]

They shouldn't even be on the golf course in the first place.
And who exactly do you think keeps the rodents away from digging extra holes?

[Jag_Warrior]

I think we've wandered off course somewhat. So back to the OP.

The point remains that the United States has never (as far as I know - please correct me with facts if I am... as I'm relying on my memory) upheld a resolution against Israel. Coming in a close second to the U.S.'s record of support would be England. But I don't think the U.S. has ever been on the opposite side of the table from Israel. That tells me that one of two things is true: either Israel has NEVER been in the wrong or the U.S. has allowed the tail to wag the dog for many, many years. Which one is it?

[Eki]

I think we've wandered off course somewhat. So back to the OP.

The point remains that the United States has never (as far as I know - please correct me with facts if I am... as I'm relying on my memory) upheld a resolution against Israel. Coming in a close second to the U.S.'s record of support would be England. But I don't think the U.S. has ever been on the opposite side of the table from Israel. That tells me that one of two things is true: either Israel has NEVER been in the wrong or the U.S. has allowed the tail to wag the dog for many, many years. Which one is it?
Exactly. The US should even once stand against Israel, if not for other reasons, then just to show who's the boss. Unless Israel is the boss and the US is their servant.

[Rollo]

Exactly. The US should even once stand against Israel, if not for other reasons, then just to show who's the boss. Unless Israel is the boss and the US is their servant.

No.

The United States is a sovereign nation and as such it has the prerogative to vote any way it wishes on any resolution, which it has done.

The link you've provided didn't give any evidence of coercion; so your claim is pretty well much baseless unless you can prove otherwise.

[Jag_Warrior]

Exactly. The US should even once stand against Israel, if not for other reasons, then just to show who's the boss. Unless Israel is the boss and the US is their servant.

The Israeli lobby makes the lobbyists from the NRA, big tobacco and big oil look like rank amateurs. The members of the U.S. congress who spend their days tripping over themselves to prove that they are loyal bootlickers for Israel include members of both major parties. No other lobbying group even comes CLOSE to that level of influence, IMO. Again, I invite people to read the Cranston Amendment. Now, tell me who else has a sweetheart deal like that? Hell, if I made a deal like that with a bank, we'd all go to jail! Pay me interest on an approved loan that has not been placed in my account yet - but I don't start paying interest on the loan until I take it? So, the bank would pay me interest on their money (until I take the loan), and once I take the loan, they're obligated to forever more continue to loan me at least enough money to make the interest payments? Yes! I want that deal!!!! Please!!!! I bet, magically, I'll never miss an interest payment either.

Several years ago, Pat Buchanan made comments that were less than supportive of U.S. policies that (overly) favored Israel. Like me, he is of the opinion that U.S. foreign policy should be based on that which benefits the citizens of the U.S. first, and the citizens of any other country second. As has happened with every other U.S. politician who didn't kowtow to Israel, Buchanan was instantly branded as a racist and an anti-Semite. I oppose radical Zionism just as I oppose most other political/social extremes. But to oppose Zionism translates to anti-Semitism in the eyes of those who hold the microphone. The message: tread lightly.

[Roamy]

Look we have to get real - Without our 100% support Israel is a glowing parking lot. Eki hates the jews I have problems with most muslims. This is not going to change. If we want to throw Israel under the bus can you just imagine the jews revolting in this country. I just can't believe no one likes my idea. We have to move them over here. Or maybe if you look at the big picture maybe that is the place we stockpile a tremendous amount of Nukes. Either way it ain't gonna change and this administration is the closest they will ever get to being dumped. Illegitimate building - what the hell is this. The house wasn't married when they fu____Ked the Pales. This world is a cesspool

[airshifter]

I think we've wandered off course somewhat. So back to the OP.

The point remains that the United States has never (as far as I know - please correct me with facts if I am... as I'm relying on my memory) upheld a resolution against Israel. Coming in a close second to the U.S.'s record of support would be England. But I don't think the U.S. has ever been on the opposite side of the table from Israel. That tells me that one of two things is true: either Israel has NEVER been in the wrong or the U.S. has allowed the tail to wag the dog for many, many years. Which one is it?


Not even close. The US has voted in favor of a great number of UN Security Council Resolutions that comdemn, deplore, insist, censure, etc., ect. the acts of Israel. As have virtually every Security Council member in the history of the council. Along with many other countries including the UK, Canada, Denmark, Norway, The USSR, Jordan, Syria there are times the US has abstained from votes that condemn the acts of Israel. If a person actually looks up the text of such Council meetings it includes notes from member countries that often clarify the reasons for abstaining.

In quite a few cases member countries abstain from a vote that they know will easily pass, simply for reasons of not backing the entire Resolution or a particular section. The US went on record a number of times, including most of the times they voted against Resolutions condemning Israel, due to the fact that the Security Council was writing a Resolution that would officially recognize a terrorist organisation (usually the PLO). The US made clear that it would not recognize, negotiate with, support, or otherwise be officially bothered with any organisation that supported terrorism, unless that organisation was the legal government of a country.

8 or 10 years ago I got tired of all the "Bully US uses the veto again" threads and arguments on the internet and actually researched the issue. Most of the Resolutions that the US used it's veto power against involved recognizing the PLO as if it were a legitimate government that represented a country. This in spite of the fact that they operated in a number of countries, and in spite of the fact that their charter essentially called for the complete destruction of Israel.


The Oslo Accords attempted to made some progress with the PLO, and they finally stated that they would recognize the legitimate right of Israel to exist. I don't think they ever managed to back this up in writing a new charter that was legit, and as usual they didn't keep their end of the deal.


While I can agree that the power of the lobbyists puts pressure on the US, it has never played lapdog to Israel as some suggest. And if a person actually reads the details of all the various Resolutions, no country has ever ignored the fact that Israel is not without fault.

[Bob Riebe]

Exactly. The US should even once stand against Israel, if not for other reasons, then just to show who's the boss. Unless Israel is the boss and the US is their servant.
The U.S. has no reason now, what so ever, to ever take stance against Irsrael.
They did in 1967, but thank God did not.

Muslim nations, have given the U.S. every reason to back Israel, and until they change, which will be when hell freezes, they are being treated as they deserve.

[Roamy]

The U.S. has no reason now, what so ever, to ever take stance against Irsrael.
They did in 1967, but thank God did not.

Muslim nations, have given the U.S. every reason to back Israel, and until they change, which will be when hell freezes, they are being treated as they deserve.

Amen to that !!!!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Zionists are funny that way, that even there's a lot of dirt in the Middle East too, they insist on building their settlement specifically in Jerusalem. So you can expect anything from them, even insisting to build on your golf course if someone tells them that the God has promised it to them.

how Dare they have their capital in a City that Jews have live in for 1000's of years before Arabs came along...horrors, the next thing you will argue they shouldn't live in a treeless, waterless desert because they actually have the GALL to make a nation worth living in out of it.

There is a reason you get no respect on Israel Eki, you are unhinged, and you ignore history when it doesn't support your anti Zionist rants...

[Bob Riebe]

The Zionists are funny that way, that even there's a lot of dirt in the Middle East too, they insist on building their settlement specifically in Jerusalem. So you can expect anything from them, even insisting to build on your golf course if someone tells them that the God has promised it to them.
They, at least some, still have faith that they are God's chosen as the Bible says.
Is your quarrel actually with their faith?
Otherwise, it is theirs, as given to them, you cannot change that no matter what you do, so you are acting like a dog barking up a tree the squirrel long abandoned.

[Jag_Warrior]

Not even close. The US has voted in favor of a great number of UN Security Council Resolutions that comdemn, deplore, insist, censure, etc., ect. the acts of Israel. As have virtually every Security Council member in the history of the council. Along with many other countries including the UK, Canada, Denmark, Norway, The USSR, Jordan, Syria there are times the US has abstained from votes that condemn the acts of Israel. If a person actually looks up the text of such Council meetings it includes notes from member countries that often clarify the reasons for abstaining.


While I can agree that the power of the lobbyists puts pressure on the US, it has never played lapdog to Israel as some suggest. And if a person actually reads the details of all the various Resolutions, no country has ever ignored the fact that Israel is not without fault.

I took the time to try to quantify the U.S.'s voting record in the Security Council on this issue. To find a (truly) unbiased source is not easy - which I found odd. But for anyone who wants to take the raw numbers and do the leg work, the UN site does offer a huge amount of rather interesting data. UN database (http://www.un.org/en/databases/index.shtml)

I may have overstated the number of times that the U.S. has supported Israel in the UN. But to say that the U.S. has gone against Israel "a great number of times" also seems to be an overstatement. What I found was that up until 1972, the U.S. had seldom used its permanent member veto power. But after 1972, it became fairly common practice... and that was typically to shield Israel from proposed resolutions. That is not to qualify the legitimacy of those resolutions, only to say that when there was a veto, it was typically the U.S. that made the veto.

Like Buchanan (on this issue), my greater concern is for the U.S., not Israel, or ANY OTHER nation. An Israeli would probably see the other side of that coin and want what was best for Israel. But I'm not an Israeli. I'm an American. IMO, this is simply part of a larger issue, where politicians in the U.S. continue to demonstrate that they can be bought by lobbyists and will do the bidding of whoever puts the biggest check in their pocket.

Senatus Populusque Amercanus

[chuck34]

I think the thread title is a bit backwards. What do you suppose would happen in the Middle East if the US wasn't keeping Israel under it's thumb, you know let them do as they please?

[Jag_Warrior]

I think the thread title is a bit backwards. What do you suppose would happen in the Middle East if the US wasn't keeping Israel under it's thumb, you know let them do as they please?

Hmm, and what would that be? ;)

Ever notice how even the puniest quarterback can act like a big man if his offensive line is made up of 300 pound gorillas?

[Eki]

I think the thread title is a bit backwards. What do you suppose would happen in the Middle East if the US wasn't keeping Israel under it's thumb, you know let them do as they please?

Well. if the US gave the weaponry and other military aid it has given to Israel to all the enemies of Israel, and toss some nukes in (they did allow Israel to freely develop their nukes without interfering and likely actively helped too), we could try. With creating Israel, the US helped to create a monster, just like it helped to create the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. By the nuke thing, I mean the US should assure Israel that if they use their nukes, it would be the last thing they do before the US turns Israel into a glass paved parking lot.

[Rollo]

With creating Israel, the US helped to create a monster,

Please go away, do some research and look at these things to begin with:

The Balfour Declaration of 1917
Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918
The British Mandate for Palestine

Israel was not ostensibly created by the US as you want to make out.

[Eki]

Please go away, do some research and look at these things to begin with:

The Balfour Declaration of 1917
Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918
The British Mandate for Palestine

Israel was not ostensibly created by the US as you want to make out.

I didn't say the US created Israel alone, I said they helped to create Israel. Totally different things. It's like the US didn't create the Soviet Union, but they helped it to survive when they gave weapons, food stuff, etc. to the Soviet Union in WW2. They also didn't create the Taliban or the Saddam Hussein regime alone, but they helped.

[chuck34]

Hmm, and what would that be? ;)

Ever notice how even the puniest quarterback can act like a big man if his offensive line is made up of 300 pound gorillas?

Yep the US (I assume you are calling us the offensive line in the analogy) helped out the Israelis with weapons and tech. Ok so what? Look at the '67 war. No outright US help and the Arab nations pretty well got their @sses handed to them. You don't think that if the US told Israel to "go for it" at this point, that something very simmilar would happen at the first sign of an aggressive action?

[chuck34]

I mean the US should assure Israel that if they use their nukes, it would be the last thing they do before the US turns Israel into a glass paved parking lot.

You don't think that is in place today? That is exactly what I mean by the US has Israel under its thumb.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yep the US (I assume you are calling us the offensive line in the analogy) helped out the Israelis with weapons and tech. Ok so what? Look at the '67 war. No outright US help and the Arab nations pretty well got their @sses handed to them. You don't think that if the US told Israel to "go for it" at this point, that something very simmilar would happen at the first sign of an aggressive action?


So if not for us keeping them in check, "doing as they please" means they'd be running around starting wars? And if it didn't go as planned, guess whose kids would be headed to the Middle East... to die in yet another war that wouldn't/shouldn't concern us.

[Jag_Warrior]

You don't think that is in place today? That is exactly what I mean by the US has Israel under its thumb.

That is most certainly NOT in place. What is in place is a stated U.S. policy that any nuclear action AGAINST Israel will be considered a nuclear attack against the U.S. There is nothing that the U.S. has in place (that I'm aware of) that suggests the U.S., under ANY circumstances, would ever put Israel on the mat. Nothing whatsoever.

[chuck34]

So if not for us keeping them in check, "doing as they please" means they'd be running around starting wars?

No the Israelis would not be running around starting wars, but the situations they find themselves would not be limited. Think '67 vs the last few "spats" they've been in.


And if it didn't go as planned, guess whose kids would be headed to the Middle East... to die in yet another war that wouldn't/shouldn't concern us.

That would be part of "go for it", or "lifting the thumb", whatever you want to call it. The US would say "go for it", but don't expect us to help. Don't kid yourself, the support of the US military has always come with many strings attached. Do you really think that the Israelis are happy having rockets lobbed into their towns? You don't think they really want to reduce their enemies to rubble? They have the ability right? So what's been holding them back in the recent past, what's holding them back now?


That is most certainly NOT in place. What is in place is a stated U.S. policy that any nuclear action AGAINST Israel will be considered a nuclear attack against the U.S. There is nothing that the U.S. has in place (that I'm aware of) that suggests the U.S., under ANY circumstances, would ever put Israel on the mat. Nothing whatsoever.

Yes the US policy is a nuclear attack on Israel is an attack on the US. That is not in dispute. However, do you really think that there aren't conversations about the Israelis "limiting" their response to certain situations?

Basically the policy is "Be good boys, and do as we say. Or no more goodies for you"

[Bob Riebe]

That is most certainly NOT in place. What is in place is a stated U.S. policy that any nuclear action AGAINST Israel will be considered a nuclear attack against the U.S. There is nothing that the U.S. has in place (that I'm aware of) that suggests the U.S., under ANY circumstances, would ever put Israel on the mat. Nothing whatsoever.
Jag is absolutely correct, thank God, on that one.

Israel is under no ones thumb, and if they could afford to build a defense industry even as large as Sweden's, I have little doubt they would not be afraid to throw their weight around.

[BDunnell]

The Israeli lobby makes the lobbyists from the NRA, big tobacco and big oil look like rank amateurs. The members of the U.S. congress who spend their days tripping over themselves to prove that they are loyal bootlickers for Israel include members of both major parties. No other lobbying group even comes CLOSE to that level of influence, IMO. Again, I invite people to read the Cranston Amendment. Now, tell me who else has a sweetheart deal like that? Hell, if I made a deal like that with a bank, we'd all go to jail! Pay me interest on an approved loan that has not been placed in my account yet - but I don't start paying interest on the loan until I take it? So, the bank would pay me interest on their money (until I take the loan), and once I take the loan, they're obligated to forever more continue to loan me at least enough money to make the interest payments? Yes! I want that deal!!!! Please!!!! I bet, magically, I'll never miss an interest payment either.

Several years ago, Pat Buchanan made comments that were less than supportive of U.S. policies that (overly) favored Israel. Like me, he is of the opinion that U.S. foreign policy should be based on that which benefits the citizens of the U.S. first, and the citizens of any other country second. As has happened with every other U.S. politician who didn't kowtow to Israel, Buchanan was instantly branded as a racist and an anti-Semite. I oppose radical Zionism just as I oppose most other political/social extremes. But to oppose Zionism translates to anti-Semitism in the eyes of those who hold the microphone. The message: tread lightly.

I agree with every word. The level of media monitoring undertaken around the world by or on behalf of the Israeli government amounts to nothing more than paranoia, and it is corrosive. When the Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge made some very mild remarks some years ago in which she said she could understand the circumstances that might cause young Palestinians to become suicide bombers, it was portrayed in the British media that, in effect, she had said that she supported Palestinian suicide bombers. She lost her spokesperson's job as a result. Why did the media take that stance? Because that was the message put out by the Israeli lobby, and the media kow-towed towards it. Disgusting.

[chuck34]

Jag is absolutely correct, thank God, on that one.

Israel is under no ones thumb, and if they could afford to build a defense industry even al large as Swedens, I have little doubt they would not be afraid to throw their weight around.

Exactly. If they could build a defense industry they would. But they can't so they are dependent upon the US. Pretty much puts Israel under the US's thumb doesn't it? Certainly not the other way 'round as was suggested in the OP.

[Tazio]

Oy vey!! ;)

[Bob Riebe]

When the Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge made some very mild remarks some years ago in which she said she could understand the circumstances that might cause young Palestinians to become suicide bombers,.
There is nothing mild about such a statement, period.
Muslim suicide bomber handler could, and probalby, would latch onto such a thing a justification for anything they do.

If questioned on it one could say: "Did you not say"- and he/she could respond-" But that is not what I meant."
Which would be responded to by: "BUT YOU SAID, these ARE YOUR words. Are they not?"

Once said, one can deny till freezes, but it was said, and cannot be changed, which means it can, and in the past has been used in ways the speaker, in the speakers incompetent, moment never considered.

[Eki]

You don't think that is in place today? That is exactly what I mean by the US has Israel under its thumb.
No, I don't think the US would anything if Israel used their nukes. Well, maybe they'd veto a UN resolution trying to condemn Israel's use of nukes, but that's all.

[BDunnell]

There is nothing mild about such a statement, period.
Muslim suicide bomber handler could, and probalby, would latch onto such a thing a justification for anything they do.

If questioned on it one could say: "Did you not say"- and he/she could respond-" But that is not what I meant."
Which would be responded to by: "BUT YOU SAID, these ARE YOUR words. Are they not?"

Once said, one can deny till freezes, but it was said, and cannot be changed, which means it can, and in the past has been used in ways the speaker, in the speakers incompetent, moment never considered.

The statement was extremely mild. Bob, stop poisoning every thread with your overly partisan vitriol, please. I'm getting heartily sick of it.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. If they could build a defense industry they would. But they can't so they are dependent upon the US. Pretty much puts Israel under the US's thumb doesn't it? Certainly not the other way 'round as was suggested in the OP.

But Israel does have a defence industry of its own. IAI and its subsidiaries must be considered one of the leading defence aerospace firms in the world in certain areas, to name but one example.

[Rollo]

No, I don't think the US would anything if Israel used their nukes. Well, maybe they'd veto a UN resolution trying to condemn Israel's use of nukes, but that's all.

The key words here are "I don't think". This is nothing more than your theory based on well established prejudice.

The situation which you envisage would be in absolute exceptional circumstances because even during the height of the Cold War nobody actually used nuclear weapons on another nation. Grant that it probably came within 24 hours of being close but it still never happened.

[Bob Riebe]

But Israel does have a defence industry of its own. IAI and its subsidiaries must be considered one of the leading defence aerospace firms in the world in certain areas, to name but one example.
But they cannnot afford to build delivery vehicles from scratch, which is why their home-built fighter was DOA.

[BDunnell]

But they cannnot afford to build delivery vehicles from scratch, which is why their home-built fighter was DOA.

True, but that is very different from saying that the country has not been able to build up a defence industry of its own, which is untrue. It has done so and, in its various fields, proved extremely successful.

[Bob Riebe]

The statement was extremely mild. Bob, stop poisoning every thread with your overly partisan vitriol, please. I'm getting heartily sick of it.
Go see a doctor before the liberal bs you are so full of- backs-up into your throat.



Before you choke on your own bs, give proof that, that statement, was "extremely mild" not your opinion, which is starting to achieve the level of Glauy, but actual proof.

[ArrowsFA1]

Here are Jenny Tonge's comments:
If I had been a mother and a grandmother in Palestine living for decades in that situation, I don't know, I may well have become one myself.

That doesn't mean to say I condone suicide bombers - I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try to understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live.
Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-mp-sacked-for-saying-she-could-have-been-suicide-bomber-574256.html)

[Rollo]

True, but that is very different from saying that the country has not been able to build up a defence industry of its own, which is untrue. It has done so and, in its various fields, proved extremely successful.

I concur with this.
There was the KFir which was quite a successful aircraft and was in service for almost 20 years. They took a Mirage 5 (?) and whacked a J79 in it, which probably made it a better aircraft than the original.

Australia also "can not afford to build delivery vehicles from scratch", but the F-111C which the RAAF had was still the world's fastest service combat aircraft when it was retired in 2010. Is that also "unsuccessful"?
I bet that if and when the F-35 Lightning II is ever delivered it will be totally unsuited to RAAF capabilities, and so CAC will rip out the avionics suites and start again, as they did with both the F-111C and the FA-18.

[Garry Walker]

I don't think
I think we have all noticed that by now.

[Eki]

I think we have all noticed that by now.
I think you're wrong (as usual).

[chuck34]

True, but that is very different from saying that the country has not been able to build up a defence industry of its own, which is untrue. It has done so and, in its various fields, proved extremely successful.

So it is your opinion that the Israeli defense force can stand on it's own without help from the US?

[chuck34]

No, I don't think the US would anything if Israel used their nukes. Well, maybe they'd veto a UN resolution trying to condemn Israel's use of nukes, but that's all.

Reality, try it sometime.

[markabilly]

The question of the jews and the middle east, is very complicated so much so beyond debating it on this forum.

I see great arguments on both sides.

Unfortunately in such cases, it usually comes down to who is the toughest and meanest.

But as to the original topic, please, USA walks a difficult path. That is the problem when you try to be the world's policeman and the maker of peace.

And why I say, better to stay home and live happy.

[Jag_Warrior]

No the Israelis would not be running around starting wars, but the situations they find themselves would not be limited. Think '67 vs the last few "spats" they've been in.

As even the Romans found, being in a state of constant war can get expensive. It can also lead to eventual ruin.



That would be part of "go for it", or "lifting the thumb", whatever you want to call it. The US would say "go for it", but don't expect us to help. Don't kid yourself, the support of the US military has always come with many strings attached. Do you really think that the Israelis are happy having rockets lobbed into their towns? You don't think they really want to reduce their enemies to rubble? They have the ability right? So what's been holding them back in the recent past, what's holding them back now?

Yes, they could bomb poorly armed and unarmed people back to the Stone Age. In Afghanistan, we could do the same thing, couldn't we? Because we haven't and we probably won't, does that mean that we are under anyone's thumb? No. It simply means that like a man, no nation is an island either. Israel has for most of its modern existence relied on taking a convenient moral (holier than thou) high ground. What limits Israel the most (IMO) is the same thing that limits us: our standing in the world community. Let’s say Israel went "buck wild" on Lebanon or where ever. What would happen if the Chinese and other major trading partners, no matter what the UN did, decided to place an embargo on ALL Israeli made goods and halted trade with them? It would take a lot more than just U.S. assistance (or vetoes on the Security Council) to save their bacon then (no pun intended). Becoming a rogue nation, when you don't have oil or some other high demand asset to offer, is pretty much suicide. The desire for self-preservation is a basic human instinct. It has nothing to do with being under anyone's thumb.



Yes the US policy is a nuclear attack on Israel is an attack on the US. That is not in dispute. However, do you really think that there aren't conversations about the Israelis "limiting" their response to certain situations?

I'm sure there are. Just as there have been discussions about how the U.S would fund the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. American taxpayers were put on the hook for the homes of the illegal settlers. They took the money. They left. And then they came back in even greater numbers. They didn't give our money back though. Oh well, that's OK. I'm sure they needed it more than we did.

I have no doubt that there are discussions about Israeli military operations. We know for a fact that the U.S. pressured Israel not to become involved in the Iraq conflict in the early 90's. But they were hardly "under our thumb". An Israeli attack would have destroyed the Arab portion of the coalition. So where Israel would have just had Iraq to worry about, they could have ended up in a war with various Arab states. Whether they could win or not is not the point. The point is, they could have easily ended up in another war. They basically sat behind the scenes and the conflict played out fairly well for all.



Basically the policy is "Be good boys, and do as we say. Or no more goodies for you"

"No more goodies for you" to the extent that it would violate the Cranston Amendment would be a violation of U.S. law. And it would take an incredibly horrific event to overturn that law.

Look, I fully believe in Israel's right to exist. I just don't believe in my (the American taxpayer) obligation to be a "blind in one eye" sugardaddy to them.

[Garry Walker]

I think. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Eki]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Apparently you don't think. Just roll on the floor laughing your ass off.

[JackSparrow]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00005201----000-.html
Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States.

Perhaps you can explain to me Eki why if the PLO have been declared to be a terrorist organization at law

Is this the same Congress that went to Iraq to find the biggest WMD arsenal known to mankind??? Get real, if the U.S government was a private entity they'd all be in prison for criminal activities!

Perhaps you can explain to me how KKK can freely operate here?? Arent they and all the skinheads terrorists as well??

[Tazio]

Perhaps you can explain to me how KKK can freely operate here?? Arent they and all the skinheads terrorists as well??The U.S. Justice system has busted the KKK balls. They hardly operate freely in the USA. The KKK and Aryan extremists are not a major threat in the U.S. They have continually been losers in civil matters (as well as criminal) and are for the most part impotent. The organization of KKK and white supremacists is called "The Church of Jesus Christ Christian". (so they actually operate as a religion) They are monitored closely. Urban gangs are much more dangerous, and constitute a greater danger to Americans than this pseudo-religion does. From what I read, and have seen these people are for the most part preaching racial purity, and the negatives of mixing race. Like I said, for the most part they are impotent. I am appalled by them, and think the real victims are their children that stand a very good chance of being indoctrinated into this extreme bigotry.
The US has not cornered the market on bigotry.
Not by a long shot. BTW The KKK is alive and well in the UK (Southern Wales especially)
People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Do you actually think the U.S. Gov. lets these people " freely operate" in the commision of criminal activity.
That is very naive

[chuck34]

As even the Romans found, being in a state of constant war can get expensive. It can also lead to eventual ruin.




Yes, they could bomb poorly armed and unarmed people back to the Stone Age. In Afghanistan, we could do the same thing, couldn't we? Because we haven't and we probably won't, does that mean that we are under anyone's thumb? No. It simply means that like a man, no nation is an island either. Israel has for most of its modern existence relied on taking a convenient moral (holier than thou) high ground. What limits Israel the most (IMO) is the same thing that limits us: our standing in the world community. Let’s say Israel went "buck wild" on Lebanon or where ever. What would happen if the Chinese and other major trading partners, no matter what the UN did, decided to place an embargo on ALL Israeli made goods and halted trade with them? It would take a lot more than just U.S. assistance (or vetoes on the Security Council) to save their bacon then (no pun intended). Becoming a rogue nation, when you don't have oil or some other high demand asset to offer, is pretty much suicide. The desire for self-preservation is a basic human instinct. It has nothing to do with being under anyone's thumb.




I'm sure there are. Just as there have been discussions about how the U.S would fund the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. American taxpayers were put on the hook for the homes of the illegal settlers. They took the money. They left. And then they came back in even greater numbers. They didn't give our money back though. Oh well, that's OK. I'm sure they needed it more than we did.

I have no doubt that there are discussions about Israeli military operations. We know for a fact that the U.S. pressured Israel not to become involved in the Iraq conflict in the early 90's. But they were hardly "under our thumb". An Israeli attack would have destroyed the Arab portion of the coalition. So where Israel would have just had Iraq to worry about, they could have ended up in a war with various Arab states. Whether they could win or not is not the point. The point is, they could have easily ended up in another war. They basically sat behind the scenes and the conflict played out fairly well for all.




"No more goodies for you" to the extent that it would violate the Cranston Amendment would be a violation of U.S. law. And it would take an incredibly horrific event to overturn that law.

Look, I fully believe in Israel's right to exist. I just don't believe in my (the American taxpayer) obligation to be a "blind in one eye" sugardaddy to them.

You seriously can't believe that there is no pressure from the US on Israel not to do some things they want, Cranston Amendment or not (yeah the US always follows the laws on the books). That puts them at least a lot closer to being under our thumb than the US being under Israel's thumb.

[anthonyvop]

The US has vetoed a resolution condemning Israel, while all other members of the Security Council had approved it. Despicable. Maybe we should start to call the US TIRA (The Israel Republic of America).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12512732

The more important question is why should we care about the U.N.?

[Roamy]

The more important question is why should we care about the U.N.?

Amen!! If we could only send the UN headquarters to Finland

[Jag_Warrior]

You seriously can't believe that there is no pressure from the US on Israel not to do some things they want, Cranston Amendment or not (yeah the US always follows the laws on the books). That puts them at least a lot closer to being under our thumb than the US being under Israel's thumb.

No one is claiming that there is not pressure (but by both sides). The U.S. has been pressuring China to stop manipulating its currency for a number of years. They've taken baby steps. But since they have taken steps, would we say that the U.S. pressure means that China is under our thumb? I don't think so. And back to the Cranston Amendment, can you name even a single instance when its provisions have not been followed?

The U.S. has already paid once for illegal settlers to leave certain areas of the West Bank. They took our money (in excess of $100K for raggedy houses built with scrap lumber in some cases) and now they've largely returned. Pretty slick, huh? In fact, they're building more than ever in some areas... over U.S. and UN objections. From what little I've read on the most recent issue, it seems that they might be willing to chat with us about it, but they want something like another $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer blackmail... I mean, "aid". They may or may not get those extra ducats. But one thing is for certain, even if they hire Donald Trump (or recent convert Ivanka) to build them a casino and a McMansion on each plot of land, the existing U.S. aid will NOT be in danger of being halted.


From where I sit, it still looks like the tail is wagging the dog.