Political Crossfire Forums

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

learn to swim wrote: psholtz wrote: and your point would be................... what exactly?? :?

It is a news report - if you need explanation of "the point" then feel free to contact the person who wrote the article.
No, my point is "why this as a front page news article"?

There are about a billion and one more important stories you could be covering right now. This one is a red herring.. (unless you can somehow prove to me that it isn't...)

antiprefix · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject:

Are they going to nuke us? Is there any intelligence proving that?

Nelson · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject:

People still don't seem to realize the benefits from supporting Israel, even when they are so blatantly clear.

What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.

The US is begging Israel not to attack the economy of these Arab countries, and the US is even willing to offer money to Israel in order to offer Israel a 'better option' than acting to strike at its enemies.

If there is a nuclear threat to Israel, it's also a threat to the US - because Israel could, at any point, choose to attack our main suppliers of Israel. The US economy would be seriously damaged by such attacks.

antiprefix · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject:

Nelson wrote: People still don't seem to realize the benefits from supporting Israel, even when they are so blatantly clear.

What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.

The US is begging Israel not to attack the economy of these Arab countries, and the US is even willing to offer money to Israel in order to offer Israel a 'better option' than acting to strike at its enemies.

If there is a nuclear threat to Israel, it's also a threat to the US - because Israel could, at any point, choose to attack our main suppliers of Israel. The US economy would be seriously damaged by such attacks.

So our resources are in danger, or are we? As in are they planning on nuking us?

Nelson · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:

Our economic and military interests are in danger if Israel enters a war and isn't given incentive to act extremely cautiously to protect American interests.

angusrae · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 974 Location: Falkirk Scotland

Nelson wrote: Our economic and military interests are in danger if Israel enters a war and isn't given incentive to act extremely cautiously to protect American interests. So The Israeli's are using economic blackmail to insure American support

Grengor · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 460

It could be, it does look that way a little.

Nelson · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject:

angusrae wrote: Nelson wrote: Our economic and military interests are in danger if Israel enters a war and isn't given incentive to act extremely cautiously to protect American interests. So The Israeli's are using economic blackmail to insure American support

To quote myself from an earlier post:

Nelson wrote:
Well, that's the catch you see. The United States needs to keep an alliance with Israel, in order to keep Israel away from accomplishing what would be in its best interest.

Currently, the United States is offering Israel money in order to not only keep the military alliance strong, but to also persuade it not to attack any of the oil-producing centers of the Middle East that Israel would -love- to attack in order to weaken its enemies economy. The United States doesn't want these areas to be struck, because it would prove to be disastrous for our already strained oil situation.

The United States, therefore, begs Israel to hold itself back and to not defend itself to the fullest. The US tells Israel not to go out and attack the economy of its enemies, because doing such will harm the US. So - the United States offers Israel a better option. We'll give you this much money per year if you do as we ask and consult us before you make any military action that you don't deem absolutely, immediately vital.

Israel has determined that accepting the US's offer would, for some reason or another, benefit Israel more than attacking oil centers in the Middle East would.

The United States has stood by its decision to send money to Israel for a good while - it must really not want those crazy Jews to 'overdefend' themselves to the point of strikes on the Arab economy.

And:

Nelson wrote:
One can look at the situation between Israel and US foreign aid in a few ways:

1. A partnership of sorts exists between the two countries, because if one or the other were to suddenly stop playing nice - both countries would suffer enormously.

2. The US is putting Israel in a bind of sorts by asking that it please not target oil-rich countries in the Middle East, and therefore offers money in compensation.

3. Israel is forcing the United States to pay it off, to prevent Israel from destroying the US' economy.

I don't have conversations with Sharon and Bush more than once every so often, but my educated guess points me towards the first option.

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10088

This isn't the first time we've been shown photos of weapons programs. Colin Powell showed tons of photos at his speech during the UN. Let the sheep race begin!

Nelson · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject:

Slippy, you're just as bad as Republicans who compare Iraq to WW2.

Just because someone lies about weapons doesn't mean every time you see weapons it must be fabricated.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Nelson wrote: What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.
Actually the U.S. imports almost none of its oil from the Middle East.. try again!

Quote: If there is a nuclear threat to Israel, it's also a threat to the US
uuuhhhh.... nope, not really! Sorry.... try again..

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Nelson wrote: Our economic and military interests are in danger if Israel enters a war and isn't given incentive to act extremely cautiously to protect American interests.
Care to elaborate on what those interest are, precisely?

Rave against the Machine · Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 532

I think alot of the American conservatives who are in favor of Israel are really anti-semite Christian fundamentalaists. After all, they believe that Jesus will return when the Jews retake Israel.. so it is in their religious belief to back the racist Zionists. In their hopes the Jews will become Christian after they take Zion.. or die by the sword basically.

TheYellowDart · Joined: 03 Sep 2004 Posts: 367

Quote: I think alot of the American conservatives who are in favor of Israel are really anti-semite Christian fundamentalaists. After all, they believe that Jesus will return when the Jews retake Israel.. so it is in their religious belief to back the racist Zionists. In their hopes the Jews will become Christian after they take Zion.. or die by the sword basically.

that's a dispenstiationalist theology that a very small minority of Christians hold to. Most of the xian fundamentalists your thinking of are probably not dispenstiationalists.

Do I think Iran would nuke us or israel? Of course not. Contrary to what some might believe, the people over there are not stupid. In fact, I'm ok with just about any state getting nukes. What I'm not ok with is when those states will give them to non-state actors (such as terrorists) who can use them without the fear of easy retaliation. Baiscally, I'm afraid of a proxy war that may already be going on b/w Iran and the US with Iran's support of terrorist groups.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

TheYellowDart wrote: In fact, I'm ok with just about any state getting nukes. What I'm not ok with is when those states will give them to non-state actors (such as terrorists) who can use them without the fear of easy retaliation.
I don't think there's any relevent "terrorist" group on this planet that isn't 110% state-sponsored. You can't separate "terrorists" and the State; they're the same creature.

Of all terrorist operations conducted globally, at least 95% are probably run out of Washington, w/ the balance being made up by those operations that are planned and run out of London and Tel Aviv..

PoS · Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 2253 Location: Oceania

Nelson wrote: People still don't seem to realize the benefits from supporting Israel, even when they are so blatantly clear.

What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.

The US is begging Israel not to attack the economy of these Arab countries, and the US is even willing to offer money to Israel in order to offer Israel a 'better option' than acting to strike at its enemies.

If there is a nuclear threat to Israel, it's also a threat to the US - because Israel could, at any point, choose to attack our main suppliers of Israel. The US economy would be seriously damaged by such attacks.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Your reasoning is that we need to keep bribing and appeasing Israel so that they won't attack their neighbors?

Talk about appeasing an aggressor state? Like when Neville Chamberlain appeased Ger- I know, the Nazi thing again- but if the shoe fits...

Nelson · Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:37 am Post subject:

psholtz wrote: Nelson wrote: What would Israel do right now if the US wasn't handing it money? Israel would be attacking the largest oil-producing countries in the world, and directly striking their economy - oil. Who will this affect the most - obviously the United States.
Actually the U.S. imports almost none of its oil from the Middle East.. try again!

Where are we getting oil from after we run out? And - do you realize how much incredible power the United States gains when it controls all of this oil? If a nation were to attack us, we would be able to determine how much they get from our current situation with money 'bribes' in the middle east. There is more reason to control all of the Middle East oil flow than simply our own use.

Quote:
The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting Gulf oil, although only about 10% of oil used in the U.S. is imported from the region. During the cold war, U.S. strategy was primarily aimed at ensuring that Gulf oil did not fall into hostile hands. Gulf oil was and remains important because of its impact on the global economy. U.S. competitors in Europe and Japan depend much more on Gulf oil than the U.S. does: 30% of European oil imports and nearly 80% of Japan’s come from the Gulf. The U.S. exerts significant influence on these countries through control of Gulf oil.

The Gulf Cooperation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain), Iran, and Iraq jointly possess 64% of the world’s proven oil reserves. The most important among Gulf states is Saudi Arabia, which alone controls 27% of the world’s oil supplies. Saudi Arabia’s light crude is particularly sought after in the market by U.S. industries for sophisticated uses such as production of airplane fuels.

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n4oil_body.html

PoS wrote:
This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Your reasoning is that we need to keep bribing and appeasing Israel so that they won't attack their neighbors?

Talk about appeasing an aggressor state? Like when Neville Chamberlain appeased Ger- I know, the Nazi thing again- but if the shoe fits...

You clearly don't understand the situation. Israel isn't the aggressor here. Infact, if you look at Israel's history, you would realize Israel is continuinally the one being attacked, as it is completely surrounded by hostile countries.

Like I said - you can look at the situation in 3 ways. Israel is forcing us to bribe them, we are begging Israel to let us keep control over oil, or it is a partnership that benefits us both.

Nelson · Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:40 am Post subject:

psholtz wrote: TheYellowDart wrote: In fact, I'm ok with just about any state getting nukes. What I'm not ok with is when those states will give them to non-state actors (such as terrorists) who can use them without the fear of easy retaliation.
I don't think there's any relevent "terrorist" group on this planet that isn't 110% state-sponsored. You can't separate "terrorists" and the State; they're the same creature.

Of all terrorist operations conducted globally, at least 95% are probably run out of Washington, w/ the balance being made up by those operations that are planned and run out of London and Tel Aviv..

It's really more like 93% in Washington, 4% in London/Tel Aviv, and the remaining 3% are split between the lost city of Atlantis and our colony on the moon. Sorry, I guess I forgot who I was talking to when I tried to give a real response to your last post.

learn to swim · Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:31 am Post subject:

psholtz wrote:
No, my point is "why this as a front page news article"?

There are about a billion and one more important stories you could be covering right now. This one is a red herring.. (unless you can somehow prove to me that it isn't...)

1. It was a front page news story so I put it in the "front page news" section. :roll:

2. Why is it front page news? I don't know - maybe because the author and newspapers felt that if Israel went in and leveled Iran's nuclear facilities (I know, it is a long shot since they don't have a history of such things :roll:) that it might be a bad thing since we are currently occupying two middle eastern countries and trying to calm things down. - That is just my guess. If you want to inquire as to why it is front page news you can contact the New York Times and ask them.

Again - just posting FRONT PAGE NEWS in the FRONT PAGE NEWS section. Feel free to ignore it as such or continue posting in something you feel to be a non-issue.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

learn to swim wrote: psholtz wrote:
No, my point is "why this as a front page news article"?

There are about a billion and one more important stories you could be covering right now. This one is a red herring.. (unless you can somehow prove to me that it isn't...)

1. It was a front page news story so I put it in the "front page news" section. :roll:

2. Why is it front page news? I don't know - maybe because the author and newspapers felt that if Israel went in and leveled Iran's nuclear facilities (I know, it is a long shot since they don't have a history of such things :roll:) that it might be a bad thing since we are currently occupying two middle eastern countries and trying to calm things down. - That is just my guess. If you want to inquire as to why it is front page news you can contact the New York Times and ask them.

Again - just posting FRONT PAGE NEWS in the FRONT PAGE NEWS section. Feel free to ignore it as such or continue posting in something you feel to be a non-issue.
Yeah, but you keep dodging the issue.. It's "front page news" according to whom? The Propaganda Masters over at Langley? Perhaps it is, I'm just wondering why you care about? b/c you were "programmed" to care about by the Mass Media?

I'm not ignoring this and I don't *want* to ignore it. It's not about *ignoring* things.. I choose not to ignore ignorance...

Wait..... :lol:

Let me rephrase that..

What I'm more interested in doing is exploring the hypocrisy of why this was chosen as a "front page news" item, when there are hundreds of other issues that are vastly more important right now.. and I'm not singling you out, I'm speaking about the whole U.S. Mass Media..