RedCafe.net - View Single Post

mathiaslg · 12th April 2002, 10:27

Raoul:

The thing is, I am not in favor of getting involved in every single engagement there is out there. One does have to pick one's battles though, and there are a few regions that are necessary to stay involved in because they are cases that are in America's best interest. IMO, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel are three such situations. Now, I will just deal with Israel here. You spoke about oil being an issue, but the Arab oil market is much less than half of what it was in 1973, and would easily be replaced by the oil markets of other countries. OPEC, if it did cut off oil supplies, would simply hurt itself politically (since it says it will not use oil as a weapon) and it would hurt its states economically, which would be suicide. Now, I am in agreement with you about researching alternative energy resources, but the threat of a lack of oil is not one that should be concerning that United States. Now, is there an economic interest in Israel?? Of course not, and so you question why we spend more money per capita on defense for Israel than we do for our own military. However, what would be the cost of dealing with Islamic Fundamentalist Governments that would result from Israel losing our defense budget and then (most likely, getting kicked off the map). That is what many intend to do Raoul, and I guarantee you dealing with the Taliban Part Deux in the Middle East would be far more difficult than dealing with it in Afghanistan. Finally, allowing multi-national organizations to get involved is all well and good, and as I have said before, these endeavors were just wild successes in Europe until America had to step in. Raoul, Europe can't even handle its own affairs, and you expect it to be able to handle the Middle East. At least it will not be capable in the near future, hell, in the long-term future as well. As for the U.N., I think it does have to get involved, however, it has to work together with the U.S. in this situation, and we should be working together to come to an agreement. Furthermore, we won't be working unilaterally since most people agree that getting a cease-fire, peace-agreement is essential (and working together with the U.N. is the best way to look good). If anything Raoul, you would ideally want the U.S. to get involved in the peace processes. This will take U.S. attention away from attacking Iraq, and concentrate it on efforts that make people happy.

12th April 2002, 10:27	#142 (permalink)
mathiaslg First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: DC, USA Posts: 11,106	Raoul: The thing is, I am not in favor of getting involved in every single engagement there is out there. One does have to pick one's battles though, and there are a few regions that are necessary to stay involved in because they are cases that are in America's best interest. IMO, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel are three such situations. Now, I will just deal with Israel here. You spoke about oil being an issue, but the Arab oil market is much less than half of what it was in 1973, and would easily be replaced by the oil markets of other countries. OPEC, if it did cut off oil supplies, would simply hurt itself politically (since it says it will not use oil as a weapon) and it would hurt its states economically, which would be suicide. Now, I am in agreement with you about researching alternative energy resources, but the threat of a lack of oil is not one that should be concerning that United States. Now, is there an economic interest in Israel?? Of course not, and so you question why we spend more money per capita on defense for Israel than we do for our own military. However, what would be the cost of dealing with Islamic Fundamentalist Governments that would result from Israel losing our defense budget and then (most likely, getting kicked off the map). That is what many intend to do Raoul, and I guarantee you dealing with the Taliban Part Deux in the Middle East would be far more difficult than dealing with it in Afghanistan. Finally, allowing multi-national organizations to get involved is all well and good, and as I have said before, these endeavors were just wild successes in Europe until America had to step in. Raoul, Europe can't even handle its own affairs, and you expect it to be able to handle the Middle East. At least it will not be capable in the near future, hell, in the long-term future as well. As for the U.N., I think it does have to get involved, however, it has to work together with the U.S. in this situation, and we should be working together to come to an agreement. Furthermore, we won't be working unilaterally since most people agree that getting a cease-fire, peace-agreement is essential (and working together with the U.N. is the best way to look good). If anything Raoul, you would ideally want the U.S. to get involved in the peace processes. This will take U.S. attention away from attacking Iraq, and concentrate it on efforts that make people happy.