|
[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep saying that it's in America's best interest, but you've yet to provide me with one legitimate reason as to why the US should unilaterally intervene in the situation, as opposed to participating in a more comprehensive approach by the UN.
[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And which other oil countries would those be?? Oil prices would skyrocket in the states if the middle east cut us off. Venezuala (the 4th largest producer), just underwent a coup today, and will continue to be unstable.
[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your analysis that the middle east would turn into 'Taliban Part Deux' if we stopped funding Israel sounds like you're painting the entire region with with the same brush, and is ultimately quite unfair since countries like Jordan, Egypt, The Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia have very good diplomatic ties to the US. Not funding them would merely level the playing field, which would in turn force both sides to reach a settlement. Israel may be tiny but they have enough conventional and nuclear weapons (courtesy of us) to level the entire middle east. This unfortunately creates a great deal of tension between Israel and its neighbors.
[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More vague generalizations ? Please specifically describe what you're referring to ?
[quote]Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US can't attack Iraq so long as the Israeli-Palastinian crisis is flaring up. Going after Saddam would require the support of at least Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and both of those nations are not too happy about our support of Israel, and so there's yet another reason why we need to be percieved neutral in this conflict.
|