|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 197 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 25 of 197:
| 
Oct 6 18:42 UTC 2003 |
And I mean a "Global Community" The Cold War is over, and we don't
need a religious war. That means we can't be thinking two
dimensionally, labeling countries either "allies" or "enemies" There
are conservative religious lawmakers in this country who think, because
of their beliefs, that any country that isn't judeo-christian is
inherently evil. And the rest of the world knows they think this. This
is why the Japanese in World War II and the Koreans in the Korean War
made such natural enemies to the U.S. Good vs. Evil. Ask anyone who
served in Vietnam or Korea, they'll tell you racism against Asians ran
rampant. It became not about enforcing policy down in the trenches, it
became good vs. evil, the christians vs. the "gooks" It became a
manifestation of many of our lawmakers' largely unstated but actual
thinking at the time.
This is why it was so easy for us to ignore our own laws after Pearl
Harbor, and round up Japanese people living in America-- American
citizens many of them-- and throw them into internment camps. Good vs.
Evil. It is what has too often caused shortsighted U.S. policies. The
Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, we over the years systematically
categorized most of Asia at one time or another as evil and our
enemies. They aren't christian societies so really they must be evil
right? And why it is so natural for us to see muslims, at least the
more radical among them, as enemies. good vs. evil.
It is short sighted, it is wrong. These people are all human beings.
When you react to other countries short sighted policies, with your own
short sighted policies, you are reacting to something done that was
wrong, by doing more wrong. That never solves anything. When you
allow racial views and religious views to dominate your thinking and
your actions, you are never going to make the right decisions for the
right reasons.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 197:
|
Oct 6 18:46 UTC 2003 |
#24 is so wrong on so many points I'd just ignore it. But others won't.
Counter examples: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. None Christian, all
Muslim, all getting the same kind of support, at the same time, as Israel.
At least two of them were/are dictatorships at the time of our support,
which means bru is half-right: we like stability.
|
bru
|
|
response 27 of 197:
|
Oct 6 18:54 UTC 2003 |
You think our politicians think as christians to arrive at their decisions?
You are so full of it. Your anti christian paranoia is boiling over. There
isn't a single vote I have ever made that hinged ont he religion of the person
I voted for. I do not know of any politician who thinks. "Is this waht God
wants us to do? Is this going to bring us closer to Armageddon so we can
bring in the rule of jesus?"
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 197:
|
Oct 6 19:18 UTC 2003 |
Re #27: Bush certainly tries to give the impression that many of his
decisions are based partly on his faith. But I don't think that has
anything to do with our policy on Israel.
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 197:
|
Oct 6 19:33 UTC 2003 |
There is a difference in using religion to make a decision and basing a
decision on religion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 197:
|
Oct 6 20:23 UTC 2003 |
What is it?
|
cross
|
|
response 31 of 197:
|
Oct 6 20:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 32 of 197:
|
Oct 7 02:11 UTC 2003 |
re: "#22 (cross): . . . They don't place their religion
above anyone else's (okay, there's a segment of the population that
does, but that's the minority). They support the rights of women. I
could go on."
Your support is appreciated. Although what is the "segment" to which
you refer??
re: "#24 (richard): #20, Bru come on, you know those aren't the real
reasons we have always supported Israel. . . ."
Mr. richard, your ignorance is showing! Back in the late '40s and early
50's the U.S. was not such a great friend of Israel. The rest of your
response, not surprisingly, is pretty much off-base, too. It has been
relatively recently that evagelicals have influenced U.S. policy toward
Israel. And, wouldn't you say that those evangelicals are "right wing
Republicans??" So, what's your excuse for the Democrats??? Finally,
doesn't Israel deserve at least one friend in the world?? Note that
just about every other country favors the Arabs. (Wonder why?? Can you
say "oil?")
And, Mr. rcurl, (cut from the same cloth as Mr. richard),
Ever wonder why so often the terrorist targets of Israeli actions are so
often wounded but not killed?? Perhaps the reason is that Israel
intentionally reduces the size of its bombs in order to limit other
damage. If the Israelis were to use larger munitions, their success
rate would be a lot higher (and the overall amount of Arab suffering
would be reduced).
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 197:
|
Oct 7 02:36 UTC 2003 |
gelinas, the u.s. leveled severe economic sanctions against Pakistan for test
detonating a nuclear weapon, but at the same time everybody knows Israel has
developed its own nuclear arsenal. But Israel is the favorite son, and more
the point we don't fear them, so there is a double standard. The Pakistanis
and the Indians both know it. Travel outside this country, go to Asia or
Europe or the Middle East, and you'll find a lot of resentment towards the
U.S. We do not have a lot of support in other parts of the world. Weare seen
as pompous and arrogant and guilty of showing favorotism.
Don't try to say that we show the same support, openly or covertly to Pakistan
or Saudi Arabia or any other country in that region than we do to Israel.
That would be patently false.. We play fav orites.
|
klg
|
|
response 34 of 197:
|
Oct 7 02:53 UTC 2003 |
And Osama don't like us none, either. Oh, my.
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 197:
|
Oct 7 03:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the political expediency of having a
strong ally in the midst of the Middle East, especially one with a
superior intelligence gathering apparatus such as Mossad.
We would be seriously blinded as to what's going on in the undercurrents
of the Arab world without our strong ties to Israel.
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 197:
|
Oct 7 03:56 UTC 2003 |
Other we aren't at war with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or any of the big middle
east powers, and even if we were, we don't need Israeli intelligence. We have
our own spies, the best in the world. The Palestinians think Mossad is a
terrorist group, and that Sharon may well use Mossad to assassinate Arafat
eventually. I think you might be underestimating the abiility of the CIA to
do its own intelligence in the region. And wasn't Mossad blamed for not doing
enough to prevent (possibly on purpose) the assassination of Yitzak Rabin?
|
other
|
|
response 37 of 197:
|
Oct 7 04:04 UTC 2003 |
I am under the impression that Mossad has been widely regarded for years
as one of, if not the finest intelligence organization in the world.
Since when do we need to be at war with anyone to want to have our own
sources for information separate from official channels?
I am in no way underestimating the ability of the CIA, but the fact is
that Israeli agents are far better at blending in in the Middle East than
American agents are.
Finally, I think anyone who honestly thinks that a close alliance in the
Middle East is dispensable to the United States is engaging in wishful
thinking at best.
|
cross
|
|
response 38 of 197:
|
Oct 7 04:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 39 of 197:
|
Oct 7 04:45 UTC 2003 |
#37...Israeli agents are better at "blending in"? What, don't you
think the CIA has arab spies and israeli spies, people who are every
bit as authentic to the region as anyone Mossad would use?
|
sj2
|
|
response 40 of 197:
|
Oct 7 05:36 UTC 2003 |
As far as allies in the Middle-east is concerned, I think I agree
with "other". Due to religious beliefs of the govts, Israel is a
natural ally. Though Saudi Arabia and other muslim nations have been
supported by the US, I don't think they are fully trusted because the
clergy (which has a lot of weight) does not approve of the ties with
US. Even as we speak, the Saudis are suspected for funneling funds to
terrorist organisation. And arabs definitely do not either like or
trust the US.
Another fundamental thing is that stability in the region either thru
democracy (the purported reason for invading iraq) or a monarchy
(Saudi and most other gulf states). I don't think any US politician
has forgotten the lessons the gulf crisis taught them. The US
definitely wants to be able to influence the middle-east to keep a
stability in oil supply, if not the prices.
Btw, Richard is definitely right on one fact. Outside the US/Europe,
the US is not liked. They are seen as arrogant, greedy and pompous.
Sure, as long you are a superpower (and the only one) you can maybe
afford this attitude of the rest of the world towards you.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 197:
|
Oct 7 06:10 UTC 2003 |
The purported reason for invading Iraq was not democracy. How soon we
forget. It was the Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (of
mass destruction).
|
tsty
|
|
response 42 of 197:
|
Oct 7 07:16 UTC 2003 |
sucha stitch .. #20 PRE-answered #24 quite thoroughly, as well it
shouldl ahve.
sj2 .. uhh, (#39) the green eyes of envy shine brightly there.
|
sj2
|
|
response 43 of 197:
|
Oct 7 10:13 UTC 2003 |
Re #42, I know americans like to think that the world envies them for
their power and wealth. But the US is hated outside US/Europe for its
arrogance mostly.
There are nations that are wealtheir but not so hated.
|
sj2
|
|
response 44 of 197:
|
Oct 7 10:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #41, ohh!!! WMDs ... you mean the stuff they never found?? Duh!!
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 197:
|
Oct 7 13:08 UTC 2003 |
Re #36: We need someone to keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They
aren't entirely trustworthy, to say the least.
Re #39: I hear the CIA has a shortage of Arab-speaking agents, actually.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 197:
|
Oct 7 13:09 UTC 2003 |
(Err, arabic-speaking, I mean, of course.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 47 of 197:
|
Oct 7 15:36 UTC 2003 |
Hehehe, you mean you saw some internal memo stating the said
shortage?? ;)
I think it is Syria and Saudi that need to looked after. As the recent
attack on Syria and media reports show, the camp fired upon was either
a deserted training camp or an ammunition dump. It certainly wasn't a
refugee camp as Syria claims. Syria also seems to have offices of
terrorist groups which operate openly. On the other hand, Saudi is
known for letting groups that raise funds for terrorist organisations
across the world.
IMHO, in the war against terror, Syria/Saudi would've been more useful
targets than a sanction-crippled Iraq.
|
tod
|
|
response 48 of 197:
|
Oct 7 15:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 49 of 197:
|
Oct 7 17:32 UTC 2003 |
sj2, you are practicing the well known psychological phenomenon known as
"projecting". Go ahead, hate away.
|