Israel defies Bush.

[Raoul]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>Raoul : We can't leave to extremists o both sides, to determine the future of the whole middle east, i belive that peace will come & blossom when the israeli occupation ends & UN resoluations r applied...the Us always talks about International legitimacy & human rights & the niccessity of applying Un resoluations on Iraq
but there never any word on Israel....there r so so so many double standereds here & that undermines yr credability.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree that things aren't going to get better until Israel clears out of the WB, but I can't see any of the Jewish settlers leaving.

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>Raoul : We can't leave to extremists o both sides, to determine the future of the whole middle east, i belive that peace will come & blossom when the israeli occupation ends & UN resoluations r applied...the Us always talks about International legitimacy & human rights & the niccessity of applying Un resoluations on Iraq
but there never any word on Israel....there r so so so many double standereds here & that undermines yr credability.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you want UN Resolutions applied, why not yell at Syria and Lebanon as well, who are constnaly bombarding Israel. Or even Iran for supplying the two. Does that not go against a UN Resolution...I think it does.

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>
I would submit that the US doesn't have any interest in the Israeli-Palastinian conflict. There's no oil there, and any support of Israel on our part merely goes to distance our already shaky relationships with Arab governments. In the long run, our only interest in the middle east is cheap oil to fuel our massive economy, and the assurance that no unstable Arab countries aquire Nuclear weapons that could be used to destabalize the region. Hence it really doesn't make sense to expend all of this energy on the Israeli-Palastinian crisis, especially when the EU is in a much more credible diplomatic and geographical position to make a difference in the conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As the world's only superpower, the United States automatically has an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, whether it likes it or not (and it does have interests here no doubt). Furthermore, I wouldn't go on about the credibility of the EU because it has a more diplomatic and geographical position to make a difference. Europe had a more diplomatic and geographic advantage in the Balkans, and that was a brilliant success...

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

As the world's only superpower, the United States automatically has an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, whether it likes it or not (and it does have interests here no doubt). Furthermore, I wouldn't go on about the credibility of the EU because it has a more diplomatic and geographical position to make a difference. Europe had a more diplomatic and geographic advantage in the Balkans, and that was a brilliant success...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can you name one legitimate interest we have in the Israeli-Palastinian conflict ?

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

Can you name one legitimate interest we have in the Israeli-Palastinian crisis ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it depends on various views I would say. Firstly, if the United States wants to maintain its pre-eminence in world affairs, it has to get involved in many of these situations, even if oil (god forbid) isn't involved. It seems to me you are very concentrated with this issue, and in provoking Arab anger. Honestly, do you think pulling out of this situation will do anything to alleviate Arab anger at the United States. They are already yelling at us to get involved, so sitting back and letting Israel do whatever it wants will hardly bode well with the Arab States. Now, you will probably then argue that, if we cut off Israel's military aid, it wouldn't have such the capability that is has today (hell, it probably wouldn't exist today, but lets say it did), and you have argued that before. However, would that be in America's interest? No, for cutting off American aid isn't going to make any new friends, it will only weaken our only partner in the region while strengthening regimes that are hostile to the U.S.. That would be foolish, to say the least. Now, while the Arab states may not like U.S. support for Israel, their lessening share in the oil market (and it is decreasing, for I talk to OPEC guys here in Vienna from time to time) will make sure that they are careful not to hurt the one thing their economies are so relient upon, and therefore, they will be careful not to do anything to take away big clients (knowing, non-OPEC members would only be so willing to step in and help). Furthermore, the U.S. has to get involved, and has an interest, because it is the only power that is capable of doing such. While the Palestinians may hate us, as Clinton showed, we are still prepared to push Israel to give a lot to them, and Arafat knows this. Europe may be in a better geographic position, but they are biased towards the Palestinians and the Israeli's will have nothing to do with this--and having leverage with the Israeli's is incredibly important. Thus, America's interest is a stable region. States don't have to like each other, but as long as they aren't killing each other, that is desirable. Therefore, I would argue, getting a more stable status quo in the region is in America's best interest, and if it pulls out, the resulting chaos would be detrimental in the long run.

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Europe may be in a better geographic position, but they are biased towards the Palestinians.</strong><hr></blockquote>

i don't agree.


why do you think Europe are pro-palestinian? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

i don't agree.


why do you think Europe are? </strong><hr></blockquote>

What is the underlying motive?? I have no idea, probably historical, the same reason why the United States is more biased towards the Israeli's. Europe also has a larger Muslim population, and it probably wants to avoid an large public outcry in that regard. There is no doubting that Bush is pro-Israeli, he himself says it, and a recent poll in the U.S. said some 75 percent support Israeli, now there is no such poll in Europe, but I imagine it would be exactly the opposite.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Well, it depends on various views I would say. Firstly, if the United States wants to maintain its pre-eminence in world affairs, it has to get involved in many of these situations, even if oil (god forbid) isn't involved. It seems to me you are very concentrated with this issue, and in provoking Arab anger. Honestly, do you think pulling out of this situation will do anything to alleviate Arab anger at the United States. They are already yelling at us to get involved, so sitting back and letting Israel do whatever it wants will hardly bode well with the Arab States. Now, you will probably then argue that, if we cut off Israel's military aid, it wouldn't have such the capability that is has today (hell, it probably wouldn't exist today, but lets say it did), and you have argued that before. However, would that be in America's interest? No, for cutting off American aid isn't going to make any new friends, it will only weaken our only partner in the region while strengthening regimes that are hostile to the U.S.. That would be foolish, to say the least. Now, while the Arab states may not like U.S. support for Israel, their lessening share in the oil market (and it is decreasing, for I talk to OPEC guys here in Vienna from time to time) will make sure that they are careful not to hurt the one thing their economies are so relient upon, and therefore, they will be careful not to do anything to take away big clients (knowing, non-OPEC members would only be so willing to step in and help). Furthermore, the U.S. has to get involved, and has an interest, because it is the only power that is capable of doing such. While the Palestinians may hate us, as Clinton showed, we are still prepared to push Israel to give a lot to them, and Arafat knows this. Europe may be in a better geographic position, but they are biased towards the Palestinians and the Israeli's will have nothing to do with this--and having leverage with the Israeli's is incredibly important. Thus, America's interest is a stable region. States don't have to like each other, but as long as they aren't killing each other, that is desirable. Therefore, I would argue, getting a more stable status quo in the region is in America's best interest, and if it pulls out, the resulting chaos would be detrimental in the long run.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The primary source of Arab resentment toward the United States is it's support of Israel - financially and militarily. Removing that would remove the biggest obstacle to the US having excellent relations with a majority of the Arab world, as well as Iran. Our only intrest in the middle east is the ability to access cheap oil - it's the reason the Gulf War was fought, and it's the reason we're considering a regime change in Iraq - because Iraq with weapons of mass destruction = instability, which in turn equals a threat to the oil supply. The only reason we're mired in trying to help the Israeli-Palastinian situation is because we partially contributed to its creation by supplying Israel with Billions of taxpayer dollars to build up their military. Those billions of dollars, F-16s, Apaches, Armour, etc are in turn what are destroying the west bank and southern Lebanon as we speak. I support the position that Israel has the right to defend itself, but let it be with their own funding.

It is not the US's role to be a global nanny for tribes who have been at war over that land for thousands of years, especially when there's nothing in it for us. That standard should apply to Israel, it should apply to Taiwan, it should apply to all African states who are killing each other off etc. These conflicts have been going on for ages and our participation will not be successful when we're blatantly in bed with one of the sides. These issues are best left to multilateral organizations like the UN or the EU, because it involves the international community in the process, instead of the perception that the US as a foreign policy puppetmaster to Israel.

 

[passiveman]

A few more paragraphs would be nice lads, especially for lazy fecks like meself.

BTW - anytime I tried to post a response as long as Math's one I couldn't and had to split them up into multiple responses - any idea what I'm doing wrong?

PS - sorry for interrupting the debate...

<img src="graemlins/angel.gif" border="0" alt="[Angel]" />

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>
The primary source of Arab resentment toward the United States is it's support of Israel - financially and militarily. Removing that would remove the biggest obstacle to the US having excellent relations with a majority of the Arab world, as well as Iran. Our only intrest in the middle east is the ability to access cheap oil - it's the reason the Gulf War was fought, and it's the reason we're considering a regime change in Iraq - because Iraq with weapons of mass destruction = instability, which in turn equals a threat to the oil supply. The only reason we're mired in trying to help the Israeli-Palastinian situation is because we partially contributed to its creation by supplying Israel with Billions of taxpayer dollars to build up their military. Those billions of dollars, F-16s, Apaches, Armour, etc are in turn what are destroying the west bank and southern Lebanon as we speak. I support the position that Israel has the right to defend itself, but let it be with their own funding.

It is not the US's role to be a global nanny for tribes who have been at war over that land for thousands of years, especially when there's nothing in it for us. That standard should apply to Israel, it should apply to Taiwan, it should apply to all African states who are killing each other off etc. These conflicts have been going on for ages and our participation will not be successful when we're blatantly in bed with one of the sides. These issues are best left to multilateral organizations like the UN or the EU, because it involves the international community in the process, instead of the perception that the US as a foreign policy puppetmaster to Israel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, your basic argument is that if we sacrifice Israel, we will have better relations with the thugs who give us the oil. Of course, this is based on the assumption that, if we stop supporting Israel financially and militarily, the people (not the leaders, I am talking about the vast, uneducated masses) of these Arabs states will actually know about it and will magically take away all of their built up anger over the years and come to be our best buddies. It doesn't work that way Raoul. Personally, I think removing support for Israel will greatly weaken the state, and the leaders of Israel's neighbors (primarily Syria) will know this (as will Arafat), and exploit it. I wouldn't be surprised if such an occurance led to Israel ceasing to exist, and do you think a good democracy would come in its place? I truly hope you don't believe that, and I guarantee you it will not be our new best friend in the region if such a state does come about. The point is, the Middle East is always going to be a problem precisely because of oil (and no matter whose side we are on). The upper echelons of these societies are doing well, the remaining 99.9 percent live in the dirt, and that will never be cured with these societies (and especially not if we become buddy buddy with their governments). Thus, do you think the anger and resentment in the masses will go away. Of course it won't, so your faith is misplaced, and sacrificing a people is not the way to go about it.

As for the U.S. not having an interest in Israel and such, I vastly disagree. It you want a case of image, how good would it look if we let a democratic nation (albeit an imperfect one) to get run over by a bunch of autocratic thugs. Now, who else would we let this happen to? South Korea? Taiwan? I think you would probably say yes. Furthermore, should we not get involved in Europe as well?? Apparently, and all just to try to make some Arab oil tycoons happy. The fact remains, going into isolation mode doesn't suit the United States interests, and in most of these major situations, the UN and the EU will struggle without American help, or are you going to deny it to them as well?

The truth is, supporting Israel is a good policy in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean we can't work to get a Palestinian state as well. As I stated earlier, the OPEC nations aren't about to use oil as a weapon, for it would be far to risky of an endeavor to their political scene as well as their economic existence. Thus, the United States is not going to be threatened by a lack of oil, and so instead of concentrating on such an issue, it should instead concentrate on the establishment of a Palestinian state. We aren't going to be loved if Israel gets run over, and we aren't going to be loved if Palestine gets a state, for in both, historical hatred of the U.S. will always remain. However, getting a peaceful resolution to the crisis will garner a lot more stability in the region that would otherwise be capable. And stability is what the United States desires, for that in turn Raoul, will take away all these oil fears that you apparently have.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>So, your basic argument is that if we sacrifice Israel, we will have better relations with the thugs who give us the oil. Of course, this is based on the assumption that, if we stop supporting Israel financially and militarily, the people (not the leaders, I am talking about the vast, uneducated masses) of these Arabs states will actually know about it and will magically take away all of their built up anger over the years and come to be our best buddies. It doesn't work that way Raoul. Personally, I think removing support for Israel will greatly weaken the state, and the leaders of Israel's neighbors (primarily Syria) will know this (as will Arafat), and exploit it. I wouldn't be surprised if such an occurance led to Israel ceasing to exist, and do you think a good democracy would come in its place?</strong><hr></blockquote>

My position is neither Pro-Arab nor Pro-Israeli, but Pro-American. America has absolutely no interests in the Israeli-Palastinian conflict. There are armed conflicts going on in various parts of the globe as we speak, and we simply can't afford to eternally prop up all of these governments with US taxpayer dollars. I would be very happy if the two sides came to a balanced agreement that would facilitate peace and security in the region. However, I am opposed to subsidizing the existence of a small country half way around the world, whose landmass is no bigger than New Jersey. We currently spend more per capita money on the Israeli military than we do on our own military. I would rather spend that money on a developing third world country where people are starving, or here at home in the US, or even better refund it back to the people - after all, it's our money.

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>I truly hope you don't believe that, and I guarantee you it will not be our new best friend in the region if such a state does come about. The point is, the Middle East is always going to be a problem precisely because of oil (and no matter whose side we are on). The upper echelons of these societies are doing well, the remaining 99.9 percent live in the dirt, and that will never be cured with these societies (and especially not if we become buddy buddy with their governments). Thus, do you think the anger and resentment in the masses will go away. Of course it won't, so your faith is misplaced, and sacrificing a people is not the way to go about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps you're overstating my views on Oil. I was merely stating the reality of our interest in the middle east. If it were up to me, we would be drilling in Alaska, off the Florida coast, as well as exploring alternative energy resources (wind/solar/fuel cel/hydro etc). The reality of being a market driven economy dictates that our interest in the middle east should be to maintain positive relations with the countries that we have economic interests with. It may sound harsh, but we have absolutely no economic interests in Israel. The only reason we aimlessly pour money into that country is because of the heavily pro-active coalition of Jewish-Americans on the left and Christian Conservatives on the right, who feel that we should ensure that Israel should be funded because of biblical reasons. Once again, if you're intellectually honest, then you will concede that this politically correct double standard is not in America's interests.

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>As for the U.S. not having an interest in Israel and such, I vastly disagree. It you want a case of image, how good would it look if we let a democratic nation (albeit an imperfect one) to get run over by a bunch of autocratic thugs. Now, who else would we let this happen to? South Korea? Taiwan? I think you would probably say yes. Furthermore, should we not get involved in Europe as well?? Apparently, and all just to try to make some Arab oil tycoons happy. The fact remains, going into isolation mode doesn't suit the United States interests, and in most of these major situations, the UN and the EU will struggle without American help, or are you going to deny it to them as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You'll note that I'm not an isolationist, since I do favour an active US role in areas and situations where US interests are at stake. Its important to note that these conflicts are best resolved by multilateral organizations like the UN or the EU. Doing so sets a positive precedent because it allows for a more accurate barometer of world opinion to be factored into the equation, which in turn is in the best interests of everyone. Conversely, a strictly unilateral approach by the US is not the best approach that can be taken since it tends to geopolitically isolate us from the world community at large.

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>The truth is, supporting Israel is a good policy in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean we can't work to get a Palestinian state as well. As I stated earlier, the OPEC nations aren't about to use oil as a weapon, for it would be far to risky of an endeavor to their political scene as well as their economic existence. Thus, the United States is not going to be threatened by a lack of oil, and so instead of concentrating on such an issue, it should instead concentrate on the establishment of a Palestinian state. We aren't going to be loved if Israel gets run over, and we aren't going to be loved if Palestine gets a state, for in both, historical hatred of the U.S. will always remain. However, getting a peaceful resolution to the crisis will garner a lot more stability in the region that would otherwise be capable. And stability is what the United States desires, for that in turn Raoul, will take away all these oil fears that you apparently have.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I never took a position that characterized our need to be loved by either side, and I'm frankly baffled why you would say that. The OPEC nations may or may not take action against the west. They've certainly done it in the past, and anyone who witnessed the long lines at the gas pump in the late 70s can readily attest to that. In the end, the best way to achieve peace would be for the international community to embrace the process by utilzing the UN, and other relevant multilateral organizations. The current one sided approach that has the US funding Israel is morally questionable since it funds the violence that it seeks to eliminate through diplomacy.

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>


The primary source of Arab resentment toward the United States is it's support of Israel - financially and militarily. Removing that would remove the biggest obstacle to the US having excellent relations with a majority of the Arab world, as well as Iran. Our only intrest in the middle east is the ability to access cheap oil - it's the reason the Gulf War was fought, and it's the reason we're considering a regime change in Iraq - because Iraq with weapons of mass destruction = instability, which in turn equals a threat to the oil supply. The only reason we're mired in trying to help the Israeli-Palastinian situation is because we partially contributed to its creation by supplying Israel with Billions of taxpayer dollars to build up their military. Those billions of dollars, F-16s, Apaches, Armour, etc are in turn what are destroying the west bank and southern Lebanon as we speak. I support the position that Israel has the right to defend itself, but let it be with their own funding.

It is not the US's role to be a global nanny for tribes who have been at war over that land for thousands of years, especially when there's nothing in it for us. That standard should apply to Israel, it should apply to Taiwan, it should apply to all African states who are killing each other off etc. These conflicts have been going on for ages and our participation will not be successful when we're blatantly in bed with one of the sides. These issues are best left to multilateral organizations like the UN or the EU, because it involves the international community in the process, instead of the perception that the US as a foreign policy puppetmaster to Israel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

good post....

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

What is the underlying motive?? I have no idea, probably historical, the same reason why the United States is more biased towards the Israeli's. Europe also has a larger Muslim population, and it probably wants to avoid an large public outcry in that regard. There is no doubting that Bush is pro-Israeli, he himself says it, and a recent poll in the U.S. said some 75 percent support Israeli, now there is no such poll in Europe, but I imagine it would be exactly the opposite.</strong><hr></blockquote>


i have no idea how the conflict is perceived on the continent but here in Britain,i've always felt the media's pro-Isreali, altho' maybe not to the extent it is in the US.. However, the public support is leaning towards the Palestinians...but even then, i don't think it can be classed as 'pro-palestinian'.. TBH most peeps don't give a damn.

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>


.. TBH most peeps don't give a damn.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately I've got the same impression from the people here. This is a never ending story and they've been fighting down there for so long that people don't even react to it anymore.

 

[kennyj]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>I find interesting when American public tackles the middle east crisis,,perhaps the only country they know outside America is Israel,,,& hundereds of miles away they give liecence to Sharon to everything he wants to.....very clever indeed espeicailly when you know that there r Israeli ppl who condem Sharon & feel embaressed of his actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I find it even more interesting that the Arab public doesn't condemn the murdering suicide bombers. Perhaps the Arab public knows nothing about anything except murder and hatred. There's some hope though. I read today that "only" 80% of Palestinians support the "martyrs." I guess that the other 20% would fit your definition of "feeling embarrassed."

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by kennyj:
<strong>

I find it even more interesting that the Arab public doesn't condemn the murdering suicide bombers. Perhaps the Arab public knows nothing about anything except murder and hatred. There's some hope though. I read today that "only" 80% of Palestinians support the "martyrs." I guess that the other 20% would fit your definition of "feeling embarrassed."</strong><hr></blockquote>


watch 'Promises' by Justine Shapiro.. its a great but very sad documentary about the kids of Isreal and Palestine... you'll get a better insight into the minds of jewish and muslim children...

 

[Tareq]

Mathias : what UN resoluations regarding Syria & lebanon ......Israel is still occupying part of Lebanon called Sheb'a farms,,,& still occupies the Golan hieghts,,,,the only UN resoluations that i'm aware of is basicaly asking the israelies to pull out.

 

[Tareq]

Kennyj :Why don't you ask yr government to sell F16 & Tomahok missiles
to the Palestinians so they can use them n their strugle 4 independence instead of blowing themselves up...
& yr info is not accurate,,,u know y ? because you watch the American media controlled by Jews,,showing only what happens to jews & completely ignoring the other side of the story.
Personally i'm against suicide boomers, But do u expect the palestinians to do nothing while Sharon has turned their cities & towns n2 chaos?

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>Kennyj :Why don't you ask yr government to sell F16 & Tomahok missiles
to the Palestinians so they can use them n their strugle 4 independence instead of blowing themselves up...
& yr info is not accurate,,,u know y ? because you watch the American media controlled by Jews,,showing only what happens to jews & completely ignoring the other side of the story.
Personally i'm against suicide boomers, But do u expect the palestinians to do nothing while Sharon has turned their cities & towns n2 chaos?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The media is not controlled by Jews. <img src="graemlins/annoyed.gif" border="0" alt="[Annoyed]" />

True, there are prominent Jews who are in the media, but to say that its controlled by Jews is inaccurate.

 

[kennyj]

Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>


watch 'Promises' by Justine Shapiro.. its a great but very sad documentary about the kids of Isreal and Palestine... you'll get a better insight into the minds of jewish and muslim children...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks, I'll check it out. It was sad reading Newsweek this week, which discussed a 17 year old Israeli girl who was blown up at the grocery and the 18 year old Palestinian girl who blew herself and the others up.

 

[kennyj]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>Kennyj :Why don't you ask yr government to sell F16 & Tomahok missiles
to the Palestinians so they can use them n their strugle 4 independence instead of blowing themselves up...
& yr info is not accurate,,,u know y ? because you watch the American media controlled by Jews,,showing only what happens to jews & completely ignoring the other side of the story.
Personally i'm against suicide boomers, But do u expect the palestinians to do nothing while Sharon has turned their cities & towns n2 chaos?</strong><hr></blockquote>

This terrorism is no different than the terrorism that brought the WTC down. I'm sure that the Palestinians have grievances against the Israelis, and that Osama bin Ladin has grievances
against the US. I have no doubt that others in the world regard these grievances as legitimate. But does that give bin Laden or the palestinian terrorists the right to kill hundreds or even thousands to make their point? No, it does not.

Please, don't give me that tired old chestnut about the American media being run by the Jews. Even the hillbillies here stopped saying that about twenty years ago. Do you really belive that in the US, with all of our liberals, that only one side of a story gets out?

BTW, historically revolutionary groups have always been out-gunned. But that hasn't stopped them. The traditional tactics have been hit and run guerilla tactics. I would think that a valiant fight along those lines might do more for their cause, instead of blowing up women and children on busses and in shops. But of course Arafat has thought of that and decided on the latter. Probably because the true purpose is simply to kill who you hate.

And it's very possible that it's not even about the land. It's about expelling any Western influence and values from the region. That's because the maniac mullahs of iran, iraq and Saudi Arabia regard even slight contact with the West as a desecration. So the holy men of Saudi Arabia preach jihad; "moderate" Iran supplies the weapons; and Saddam pays the families of the fanatics who blow themselves up in service of a perverse, medieval doctrine.

And why should the US care? Bush appealed to everyone to crack down on terrorists like the Israelis are doing, so his stance is a little confusing. Basically, the Arab nations told Bush that they would oppose any action against Iraq until there is some sort of cease fire between israel and the Palestinians.

Also, Israel is the target du jour. Then it's the USA. Recently, the United Intifada Command, with links to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's Fateh, issued a call for "the Palestinian and Arab masses" to strike at American interests throughout the world. I would guess that Europe would be after us.

 

[mathiaslg]

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.

 

[Raoul]

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

 

[mathiaslg]

Raoul:

1. I never said I wanted the U.S. to act unilaterally, so don't imply such. As I stated before, I want America to work together predominantly with the U.N., but also together with the EU, Russia and the Arab states to work out the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis. Furthermore, to level the playing field, perhaps we should ask the EU to stop funding the Palestinian Authority (since Europe has payed for almost 40% of its budget over the last decade). Honestly, it was you saying that the United States should totally get out of the situation, and I stated it should stay involved in the situation.
2. And where would that oil come from? Well, I even with Iraq cutting off its oil for a month, and problems occuring in Venezuela, a shortage of oil isn't the problem, just the price per se. However, as I recall, the price of oil has been increasing over the last 5 months anyway, and do you actually think having the U.S. pull out of the region (which, IMO, would spark additional violence) would somehow lower oil prices? The best thing the United States can do, as I said, is get the peace-process rolling again, and having the backing of the U.N. will help this a great deal. Your notion of having the U.S. pull out will only detabalize the situations IMO.
3. I wouldn't overstate the tied the Middle Eastern states have with the United States. Perhaps their government, outwardly, is supportive of the United States, but I think the situation with the people themselves is vastly different.
4. Well, if you have failed to remember Europe's activity in Bosnia during the early 1990's, it was a complete disaster. Srebrenica a primary example, and their safe-havens hardly lived up to their billing. The reason peace was kept was because of the 60,000 troops that were initally deployed, a good portion of these were heavily armed American forces. That is what kept the peace, not the people's new found love for each other. American troops would have to get involved in any U.N. force if such a force was deployed (as U.S. forces should get involved in ISAF right now).
5. If we work with the U.N. effectively in this crisis, we will have more support for a broader U.N. mandate regarding smart sanctions and the deployment of weapon's inspectors in Iraq, which is the goal we should be gunning for.

 

[Raoul]

This issue has been hacked to death in this thread and in others so I'm not going to recycle whats been said in the past. The situation will cleanse itself in time, and hopefully the US will not have anything to do with it after that.

 

[passiveman]

It's funny how polarised opinion is on this issue - nobody seems to be able to shift from their standpoint no matter how adept the opposing argument.

No wonder it's nearly impossible to find a compromise in the real situation when no consensus can be reached here.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by passiveman:
<strong>It's funny how polarised opinion is on this issue - nobody seems to be able to shift from their standpoint no matter how adept the opposing argument.

No wonder it's nearly impossible to find a compromise in the real situation when no consensus can be reached here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The trick is to blame both parties by taking neither side.

 

[passiveman]

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[kennyj]

I walked past the Palestinian demonstration in NY today. There was about 1,000 to 1,200 people, spread out over enclosed areas covering two short blocks, with the majority being high school girls. I'm curious to see how each side will number it. There were hundreds of media present. Thankfully, it was peaceful.

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

Originally posted by kennyj:
<strong>I walked past the Palestinian demonstration in NY today. There was about 1,000 to 1,200 people, spread out over enclosed areas covering two short blocks, with the majority being high school girls. I'm curious to see how each side will number it. There were hundreds of media present. Thankfully, it was peaceful.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Typical, you'd think they have other better things to do like read on the next exam or something instead of running in these useless demonstrations. The media should stop covering them, a waste of resources really as no reader cares about these protests. You could save one journalist sallary there.

 

[beatlemanu]

Here are a few articles to confuse the situation a little more... I took these from an American message board.
You've probably read these already, just thought they might be interesting...

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1926000/1926194.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1926000/1926194.stm</a>

<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/09/LatestNews/LatestNews.46578.html" target="_blank">http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/09/LatestNews/LatestNews.46578.html</a>

 

[Tareq]

& this one is more interesting :
cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/macdonald_censored20318.ram

 

[Raoul]

it doesnt work Tareq.

 

[Tareq]

yes it shows error... ...anyway the stories about the way Israeli army officers r miss treating Palestinian civilians r endless.

 

[beatlemanu]

Yep

 

[Raoul]

Anyone just see that interview with Sharon on CNN. What a nice guy !

 

[Tareq]

Raoul : What happened to Bush's & Condoliza's statements : the pull out should start now ?
Have you seen the scenes n Jenien camp ?...after several days they allowed red cross to enter,,,,why the delay ? they have something to hide ???,,,

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>Raoul : What happened to Bush's & Condoliza's statements : the pull out should start now ?
Have you seen the scenes n Jenien camp ?...after several days they allowed red cross to enter,,,,why the delay ? they have something to hide ???,,,</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tareq,

Bush and Condoleeza Rice don't control the situation. Its all up to Sharon.

 

[Tareq]

it's up to Sharon,,,,sure,,,,I wonder what future waits the middle east f someone convicted 4 his part n massacers n 1982 controls the issue ?
no wonder palestinians r blowing themselves up.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by tareq abd albari:
<strong>it's up to Sharon,,,,sure,,,,I wonder what future waits the middle east f someone convicted 4 his part n massacers n 1982 controls the issue ?
no wonder palestinians r blowing themselves up.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Arafat and Sharon are not angels, that's why its important to focus on ways to stop the violence, instead of finger pointing about what the other has done in the past IMO.