The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Umm it's right in your comment.

haha, well, I agree, I did in fact mention congress. I don't know what else to say, you are interpreting my argument (that I am apparently complaining that Obama is talking to Congress) incorrectly. The mention of Obama talking to Congress was not me complaining that he was consulting congress nor was it my point. My point was that Obama was considering taking action in Iraq because the shit's gone downhill there. The congress point was used as proof to address cartman's suggestion that 'Obama was saying he doesn't want to do shit'.

Maybe a better posting from you would have been to comment, "You complain when he doesn't take action in Iraq, you complain when he does. What exactly is your preferred outcome in that regard anyways???"

That would have made more sense to me, since it would have been addressing my actual point.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've been tough on Obama for his near-constant foreign policy blunders, but this is not one of them.

I actually disagree with this, Obama certainly shares alot of blame for this mess right now. He didn't start the ball rolling but he was on watch. US troops left in late 2011 which means Obama was in office for approx. 2+ years.

I don't condone the assassination of foreign leaders and putting in our own junta (well, maybe except for North Korea) but I'm not above dirty tricks campaigns against Maliki.

They also should have seen, anticipated, mitigated the threat of ISIS to Iraq during the Syrian civil war.

I think Obama was either too hands-off'ish or distracted.

[Edward64]

Assuming that Iraq is much more closely aligned with Iran than ever will be with us, is it bad to let Iran support Iraq? They'll gain to benefit but will also bear the risks including being mired in Iraq, ISIS maybe adding I(ran) at the end, antagonizing the other Arab states which may then find incentive to align more with the US etc.

Our play then is to keep the Iraq Kurds in our camp ... not sure but assume the Sunni's hate us also.

Economic fallout by increased gas prices but with the shale option, the decreased gas usage, the emergence of electric cars etc. it probably won't be as bad as in the 2000's.

Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants | World news | theguardian.com

Iran has sent 2,000 advance troops to Iraq in the past 48 hours to help tackle a jihadist insurgency, a senior Iraqi official has told the Guardian.

The confirmation comes as the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said Iran was ready to support Iraq from the mortal threat fast spreading through the country, while the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, called on ordinary Iraqis to take up arms in their country's defence.
:
:
The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight. The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

There is growing evidence in Baghdad of Shia militias continuing to reorganise, with some heading to the central city of Samarra, 70 miles (110km) north of the capital, to defend two Shia shrines from Sunni jihadist groups surrounding them.

[Dutch]

Mostly agree, Edward, but I would caution us from picking and choosing camps inside of Iraq (Like the Iraqi Kurds) because for every friendship in that region, their is a strong and opposite enemy. For the Iraqi Kurds, it's the Turks. For the Iraqi Sunni's, it's the Shia. For the Iraqi Shia's, it's the Saudi Arabian peninsula.

Bottom line, the USA (under Bush) made a promise to support the government of Iraq proper, Obama quit that support and relinquished the fledgling nation (that we created) to regional powers and internal forces (some friendly, most not). Give them their shot to sort it out. I'm pretty positive they will fuck it up, but as long as they don't fuck with my gas prices again (they will) then I could care less about the region and who owns and rules what.

Bottom Line: Let them fight.

[JPhillips]

ISIS is no threat to Iran proper. The estimates of troop strength for ISIS are around 10,000 men. The problem is no one in Iraq has been willing to fight them. Now that Shia men are flocking to the army ISIS almost certainly has no chance at taking Baghdad. Whether the Shia army pushes Isis back is the real question.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

ISIS is no threat to Iran proper. The estimates of troop strength for ISIS are around 10,000 men. The problem is no one in Iraq has been willing to fight them. Now that Shia men are flocking to the army ISIS almost certainly has no chance at taking Baghdad. Whether the Shia army pushes Isis back is the real question.

No threat militarily for sure. But think of the havoc they can cause with terrorism. ISIS middle eastern men being able to blend into Iran, it'll be sweet irony for Iran to experience suicide bombers ...

I think this will be one result of Iran's support of Iraq unless the ISIS is totally crushed.

[mauchow]

Can someone explain whats happening with USS Bush going to Iraq?

My brother in law is on that ship and mother in law is going all kinds of crazy.

[NobodyHere]

I'm betting we'll be launching airstrikes soon against ISIS

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm betting we'll be launching airstrikes soon against ISIS

One of the wives spoke with their husband this morning and he basically told her that he was going in for bombings tonight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder (in a Wag-The-Dog sort of way) how much impact events in Iraq will have on the outcome of the runoff election in Afghanistan?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by mauchow

One of the wives spoke with their husband this morning and he basically told her that he was going in for bombings tonight.

Well, if a sailor said it, it must be true.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Mostly agree, Edward, but I would caution us from picking and choosing camps inside of Iraq (Like the Iraqi Kurds) because for every friendship in that region, their is a strong and opposite enemy. For the Iraqi Kurds, it's the Turks. For the Iraqi Sunni's, it's the Shia. For the Iraqi Shia's, it's the Saudi Arabian peninsula.

Interesting article on Turkey seemingly supporting an independent Kurdistan

Turkey Would Support Iraqi Kurds' Bid For Self-Rule, Spokesman Says In Historic Remark

ERBIL, Iraq -- In a statement that could have a dramatic impact on regional politics in the Middle East, a spokesman for Turkey's ruling party recently told a Kurdish media outlet that the Kurds in Iraq have the right to self-determination. The statement has been relatively overlooked so far, but could signal a shift in policy as Turkey has long been a principal opponent of Kurdish independence, which would mean a partitioning of Iraq.

"The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of the entity they are living in," Huseyin Celik, a spokesman for the Justice and Development Party, told the Kurdish online news outlet Rudaw last week.
:
Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan have recently forged a strong bond over oil, much to the chagrin of Iraq, which claims that Baghdad has sole authority over oil in Kurdistan. Turkey recently signed a 50-year energy deal with Iraqi Kurdistan’s semi-autonomous government to export Kurdish oil to the north, and Kurdistan has increased its exports this week despite the insurgency by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk -- known as "the Kurdish Jerusalem" -- has long been an obstacle to independence. The Kurds controlled it briefly in 1991 before Saddam Hussein drove them out amid a horrific chemical weapons attack. Last week, they retook control of the disputed city when Iraqi forces fled ISIS, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to give up the city’s oil reserves. Kirkuk is capable of producing as much as half of all of Iraq's oil exports, although Kirkuk’s pipeline is currently offline following militant attacks in the spring.
:
:
Syria and Iran have long opposed the creation of an independent Kurdistan, but Turkey has been the most significant obstacle, as it previously threatened to invade the area if the Kurds declared independence. With Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki tied up in civil wars, neither seems to be in a position to stop the Kurds from becoming fully independent.

The United States has also taken a stand against an independent Kurdistan, largely in support of Turkey. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a leading foreign policy voice in conservative circles, was stunned to hear that a Turkish spokesman had opened the door to what the U.S. has so long opposed. "I'm surprised," he told The Huffington Post. "But what about the Kurds in Syria? What about the Kurds in Turkey?"

[Dutch]

I think most Turks would agree that the boundaries of Iraq (in particular) was handled rather poorly by the old colonial powers. So to that extent, the average Turk is sympathetic. I'd be surprised if they truly were interested in a sovereign Kurdish state, though. The Turks ultimately like the ability to chase insurgents into the lawless northern regions of Iraq since Iraq never gave a shit who roamed around up there.

[Dutch]

U.S. advisers due to arrive in Iraq soon

The Iraqi government was waiting for the initial group of U.S. military advisers to arrive in Iraq soon, a senior defense official said, as crowds paraded nationwide in a show of unity for the government.

This first detail is expected to be very small, the official said. The total number of U.S. military advisers who will eventually deploy will be about 300.

In addition, some U.S. military personnel already at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be reassigned and become advisers, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said.

The first group of advisers will conduct an initial assessment of Iraqi troop capabilities and of what may be needed for a larger group of U.S. advisers, including additional security measures where they may be deployed, a senior defense official said Friday.

Four western Iraqi towns fall to ISIS militants - CNN.com

[Dutch]

The U.S., meanwhile, has been drawn back into the conflict with so much at stake. Obama announced Thursday he was deploying up to 300 military advisers to help quell the insurgency. They join some 275 troops in and around Iraq to provide security and support for the U.S. Embassy and other American interests.

Obama has been adamant that U.S. troops would not be returning to combat, but has said he could approve "targeted and precise" strikes requested by Baghdad.

Manned and unmanned U.S. aircraft are now flying over Iraq 24 hours a day on intelligence missions, U.S. officials say.

Iraqi insurgents capture fourth town since Friday | Fox News

[Dutch]

Iraq crisis: Islamists force 500,000 to flee Mosul

As many as 500,000 people have been forced to flee the Iraqi city of Mosul after hundreds of Islamist militants took control of it, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says.

Troops were among those fleeing as the jihadists from the ISIS group took the city and much of Nineveh province.

The head of the Turkish mission in Mosul and dozens of consulate officials have been seized.

PM Nouri Maliki has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency.

The US said the development showed ISIS was a threat to the entire region.

BBC News - Iraq crisis: Islamists force 500,000 to flee Mosul

[DaddyTorgo]

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

Yeah, invading Iraq was such a dumb mistake that even Glenn Beck admitted he was wrong in supporting it.

But at least Haliburton got their profits.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

I've mentioned this on here before, the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army once wisely stated, "This isn't about War and Peace. This is about war and a much larger war."

I finally and begrudgingly agree that war now is not the answer. We should wait until we can get even the dove's on board. And what kind of war might that be? I think the Turks know what that means. Bottom line though, we'll win either way, so why worry about it.

[JPhillips]

I saw this morning that the Kurds sold oil independent of the Iraqi government. Not only that, but they shipped it through a Turkish pipeline and sold it to Israel. That's an extremely interesting sale of a tanker's worth of oil.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I've mentioned this on here before, the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army once wisely stated, "This isn't about War and Peace. This is about war and a much larger war."

I finally and begrudgingly agree that war now is not the answer. We should wait until we can get even the dove's on board. And what kind of war might that be? I think the Turks know what that means. Bottom line though, we'll win either way, so why worry about it.

Nice quote trying to roll this into the "war on terror" but it ignores my fundamental point that we never should have gone to war there in the first place, and frankly, even I, who has a history degree and a strong concentration in poli-sci (so don't intimate that I don't understand the the ramifications of what I'm about to say) think that it's past time we stop fucking around in the Middle East and let them deal with their own problems.

Does that suck for all the innocent people there - yes absolutely. I have to balance my desire to get the fuck out of there and not see more Americans die for oil with the reality that that means that some innocent women & children there will die, and when i think that about that I don't sleep as easily at night.

You do realize that the reason the Islamists see us as the "Great Satan" is because we have a military presence in the Middle East, right? And that historical presence led to involvement in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and etc. etc. You can say that Islam is a religion of conquest, etc. and they'd be "coming for us" anyways, but the reality is we'd be in a stronger position if we weren't militarily present there as targets and the focus for anger.

All because what? Oil and Israel?

There's other sources of oil. And maybe, just maybe, if we let them deal with their own issues and they didn't hate us we could stay on good terms with whatever resulted and keep oil prices down. Not to mention that there's other sources of energy - and developing those would be an economic boon to US, instead of a cabal of absolute rulers in the middle of a fucking desert.

And Israel? It's well past fucking time that they grow up as a nation and stop relying on the implicit backing of US muscle to backstop their refusal to compromise and seek a solution to their relations with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

It's pretty sad that would have more US soldiers die in this bullshit, backwater turd of a country where we didn't really ever have a reason to be aside from the ego of a small group of neocons (fueled by the military-industrial complex) while I am the one arguing for less US soldiers putting their lives on the line.

Newsflash - there's nothing "glorious" and commendable about US soldiers needlessly putting their lives on the line. "Support the troops" /= "march them off to die for stupid fucking reasons."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I saw this morning that the Kurds sold oil independent of the Iraqi government. Not only that, but they shipped it through a Turkish pipeline and sold it to Israel. That's an extremely interesting sale of a tanker's worth of oil.

Saw that too. Maybe instead of backing al-Malaki to the hilt we ought to think about whether an independent Kurdish state could reach some sort of agreement with Israel and provide another strong pole to help secure that whole area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

There's other sources of oil. And maybe, just maybe, if we let them deal with their own issues and they didn't hate us we could stay on good terms with whatever resulted and keep oil prices down.

Dude, lay off the 'shrooms.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And Israel? It's well past fucking time that they grow up as a nation and stop relying on the implicit backing of US muscle to backstop their refusal to compromise and seek a solution to their relations with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

It's rather difficult to behave exactly as people who have never known a real threat a half-world away would think proper if you have several countries with a combined population 30 times larger than yours completely dedicated to your eradication.

I don't understand all of their defense tactics, but it's hard to defend a country the size of Massachusetts without constant attention to defense. I would like to see a little restraint on the settlements, too, but much of that is in areas they have to control if they are to defend their borders. It's impossible to compromise if your enemies feel the only possible compromise is your death. That's not opinion, that's just what these countries say they want.

We may feel it's OK to abandon the area entirely. Iraq's Christians now face forced conversion or death in the ISIS movement. Are we comfortable allowing ISIS to take control? After all, we got rid of a pretty terrible dictator, failed completely at "nation-building" or whatever the hell Bush dreamed he could accomplish from the safety of the West Wing. This is what happens when we create a power vacuum.

Without US assistance or threat or implied support, Israel will continue to defend itself. Perhaps less successfully, perhaps, in desperation or in response, using its considerable nuclear arsenal. That might well get everyone into WWIII.

Should we turn back time to 1948 and tell the people in the Mandate that, while they have just as much historic claim to this tiny area as anyone, it's better to put Israel somewhere else in the world? Yeah, I think so. Part of Alaska was offered at one point. It's hard in the post-colonial world to find anywhere, really. But that would have caused the fewest problems.

Now we're several wars and a few million more people and 66 years past 1948. Time machines don't exist. I think we have to recognize Israel as a legitimate country with a right to defend itself. Which means a right to control some redistricting after winning, against all odds, the attempt to destroy Israel in 1967.

As for Obama and Iraq, I don't know. One tactic could be a determination to declare war on "radical Islam", wherever it is. But what is "radical Islam?" We have a billion people in the world in Islamic countries that don't seem to be radical at all. Turkey's pretty friendly and safe. Indonesia's one of the largest countries in the world, and it's stable and we have no interest in bothering them at all. India (not a high percentage of Muslims, but they add up) and Bangladesh add another 200 or so million Muslims. Then we have a couple dozen people in Minnesota, of all places, running off to join the bloodbath. WTF? It's not an easy problem. It's religious in origin, but it's not about the religion.

It's easy to conclude that we should be isolationist. If we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try. Sometimes I agree with that. Sometimes I think we should recognize our friends - even the unpopular ones like Israel - and side with them. But maybe there's just too much hate in the world, and peace is impossible.

We're lucky to live in a country that hasn't known a real threat in more than half a century... scratch that... almost 13 years.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

I agree with you, but it is what is now...we broke it, and sadly, we're kind of responsible for it now. How do we handle it? I have no idea.

While I tend to back Israel more, I do think the Israel-Palestine is a situation where both sides don't seem to want to give an inch in regards to Jerusalem (in my view, it should be taken back as a U.N. city) and until that's solved, you're not going to see any movement.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And the hawks of endless war continue their drumbeat (referring to the media, not you Dutch).

Not saying the issue isn''t real, but maybe we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place in some bullshit war with a pretext that was so flimsy it didn't stand up at the time so that GWB & the neocons in his administration could finish what Bush Sr. started.

Bush Sr. was smart. He got one of the largest coalitions involved in world history to join us, achieved his objectives, neutered Saddam and then got the fuck out with minimal casualties. Post Gulf War the Iraqi military was a shell of itself, but with just enough power to keep the peace because Saddam was the only guy who could actually keep the country together. He may have been a total douchebag, but he was the only douchebag standing in the way of more radical douchebags and/or total anarchy. "The devil you know..." and in this case the devil we knew couldn't hurt anyone else.

It all was very well done and something you'd expect from someone who was once the head of the CIA and had a firm grasp on the situation. For some reason, the neocons and Bush Jr. never understood why it was best to leave a de-nutted Saddam in place and now we're seeing the results of their lack of foresight.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's rather difficult to behave exactly as people who have never known a real threat a half-world away would think proper if you have several countries with a combined population 30 times larger than yours completely dedicated to your eradication.

.

That's great and all and I can appreciate that, but you know what - THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

They're grown up now...they can deal with their own shitty situation. The "special relationship" with Israel is the biggest shit-sandwich foreign-policy wise that this country has gotten itself into maybe since like...its founding.

Fuck holding their hand and backing them to the hilt as they go all hard-line. Either we should wash our hands of them and let them go it on their own or we should exert a much stronger hand on what they're doing so that their mouths aren't writing checks that they expect our military to back up.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree with you, but it is what is now...we broke it, and sadly, we're kind of responsible for it now. How do we handle it? I have no idea.

England "broke it" back during and shortly after WWII...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's great and all and I can appreciate that, but you know what - THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

They're grown up now...they can deal with their own shitty situation. The "special relationship" with Israel is the biggest shit-sandwich foreign-policy wise that this country has gotten itself into maybe since like...its founding.

Fuck holding their hand and backing them to the hilt as they go all hard-line. Either we should wash our hands of them and let them go it on their own or we should exert a much stronger hand on what they're doing so that their mouths aren't writing checks that they expect our military to back up.

Yeah, I don't think I want to play this game. Either we make friends where we can or we don't. But if we don't, we may lose the opportunity for peace.

I'd say we've made dozens of recent policy decisions far worse than backing a friendly country, but why bother?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yeah, I don't think I want to play this game. Either we make friends where we can or we don't. But if we don't, we may lose the opportunity for peace.

I'd say we've made dozens of recent policy decisions far worse than backing a friendly country, but why bother?

Is that supposed to be an insult about engaging in a discussion with me regarding this because you feel that I'm unreasonable or whatever?

Israel is not a "force for peace" in the Middle East. They're not even trying for peace - they're actively pursuing policies that make things worse, that's my point.

Either they need to be an actual force for peace or what's the benefit to us of backing them given the rest of my thoughts??

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

England "broke it" back during and shortly after WWII...

I have no problem letting England take care of the messes they've created. Not like their soccer team is doing anything.

[Dutch]

Saddam kept central Iraq together through straight up thuggery. The lawless north housed Al Qaeda, autonomous Kurdish groups that killed and bnmed inside Turkey, Iranian radical camps, and at least a couple Turkish divisions including armor(!) chasing Kurdish militants. And the part we all forget is the ammount of US military personnel required to "police" Iraq perpetually to stop Saddam from killing the indigenous Kurds in the North and the Shia in the south....and then there is Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that was his true ambition. All after an 8 year war in Iran where he killed a million people.

To claimthat he ran the country swimmingly is simple partisan revisionism. Bush was faced with a choice...evict that asshole and try and do something positive with the result or quit Iraq. To assume things would have ended well had we quit then is simply unrealistic.

But I do agree that they need to sort it out themselves now. I certainly dont want Obama to even pretend to know how to handle this militarily. Just let them fight.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Is that supposed to be an insult about engaging in a discussion with me regarding this because you feel that I'm unreasonable or whatever?

Israel is not a "force for peace" in the Middle East. They're not even trying for peace - they're actively pursuing policies that make things worse, that's my point.

Either they need to be an actual force for peace or what's the benefit to us of backing them given the rest of my thoughts??

No, it's just that your language when describing "special relationships" and "shit-sandwiches" and "fuck holding their hand" and that stuff about their mouths... it just makes me feel queasy, I guess. Just an internet forum, not worth having those feelings.

My point about Israel is that it's there. They have just as much right to be there as anyone. They were there in ancient times. They were kicked around by the Romans. They were there in the 1800s. It became the center of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, when the Russians did their version of Hitler. Population grew there through the 1920s, 1930s and the British Mandate, and it became the logical place for Israel in 1948.

But so many people - hundreds of millions compared to their eight million - are willing to do anything to kill them all. So, they sometimes do things that we don't understand, not having to worry that we'll die tomorrow. They can't even ask for peace when their enemies refuse to even acknowledge that a Jewish state can exist in peace under any circumstances.

So I give them a little latitude in their defense. They think there should be a wall on the border? OK. Try it. Probably won't work. We have no border security whatsoever. And all that happens is some aches and pains with people crossing the border. If Israel doesn't have Border Security, a lot of people will die quickly. I mean, it's obvious that at some point in our lifetimes, probably sooner than later, those eight million people are going to die. Too many people want that to happen for it not to happen. I don't agree with everything they do, but they're under a pressure that we simply can't relate to, and negotiations have gone badly. I get why they respond the way they do. But, still, it is a democracy friendly to the US, and I think it's worth trying to help.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No, it's just that your language when describing "special relationships" and "shit-sandwiches" and "fuck holding their hand" and that stuff about their mouths... it just makes me feel queasy, I guess. Just an internet forum, not worth having those feelings.

It's not irritation directed at you with those feelings/words - it's irritation at the avoidable situations that our unquestioning, unwavering support for Israel has put this country in since its founding. Not to mention the fact that if you have the temerity to question the relationship you get shouted down as some sort of Nazi-sympathizer or pro-terrorist nutjob 95% of the time.

Look...I get it...I could even see some sort of like...grace period for supporting them because we felt bad about the Holocaust and they deserved a chance to establish a state. But that time IMO is long past and they're a constructive actor working for regional stability.

They shouldn't get to write blank checks of aggressive behavior backed up by our military. That's messed up. If they feel strongly enough about this stuff then let them take these positions without an implicit or explicit guarantee of our protection.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If they feel strongly enough about this stuff then let them take these positions without an implicit or explicit guarantee of our protection.

You might get less complaint about that from the Israeli's than you think.

But when they nuke the sorry bastards that surround them then I don't want to hear a damned word from anybody that insisted we stop any assurance of their protection.

If anything, I dare say our involvement has done as much in recent years to insure the protection of the terrorist states that surround Israel as they've done to "protect" Israel.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If anything, I dare say our involvement has done as much in recent years to insure the protection of the terrorist states that surround Israel as they've done to "protect" Israel.

That's an interesting POV, and not necessarily one that I disagree with.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Should we turn back time to 1948 and tell the people in the Mandate that, while they have just as much historic claim to this tiny area as anyone, it's better to put Israel somewhere else in the world? Yeah, I think so. Part of Alaska was offered at one point. It's hard in the post-colonial world to find anywhere, really. But that would have caused the fewest problems.

Thats interesting - I didn't know Alaska had been suggested, I've always thought there were a few other logical alternatives:

* Utah - with its high Mormon population i'd have thought they'd have rejoiced at being the 'New Jerusalem'; it'd probably have fitted in fairly reasonably with their interpretation of things and won them a fair few new converts (this could stand for any area with a large Christian population really, the Mormons just happened to come to mind as if I remember right they were looking for a 'new Jerusalem'?).
* Any large country/state with a largely inhospitable region (Australia, various US states etc.). Basically I'd have thought they'd have seen it as a chance for huge immigration investment and a way to terraform an area for the better, if you consider whats been spent on the Israeli military over the years then consider that having been spent on something creating a positive influence for mankind.

(all incredibly moot I know - just always amazed me how they managed to pick practically the worst possible solution ...)

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You might get less complaint about that from the Israeli's than you think.

Ya, I always got the sense that part of the support wasn't just propping Israel up against certain destruction, but instead to help prevent war breaking out in the region - a war that very likely would end with Israel still standing but millions dead.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(all incredibly moot I know - just always amazed me how they managed to pick practically the worst possible solution ...)

In the 1890s, when Russia made life impossible for its huge population of Jewish people, families had two choices. This was the birth of Zionism. Those who liked the idea of a Jewish state chose to join Jews in ancient Israel (much of what we call Palestine and Israel today) and try and form a Zionist state. Those who were less religious and wanted to continue living in the diaspora wound up all over the place, but a huge percentage went through Ellis Island and founded New Jersey (that's supposed to be a joke, by the way - the founding New Jersey part at least).

During the buildup to WWII, when the Germans started trying to rid Europe of Jews (and gay people, and people with birth defects, and Roma, and any of a dozen other traits that didn't fit their view of eugenics), escape became difficult. People would try and flee any way they could. Under the British Mandate, a certain number of Jews could flee to what is now Israel and Samaria and Judea (Samaria and Judea are known today as the West Bank).

So when it came time to reconstruct after WWII, many felt there was a need for a formal Jewish state. Without considering all the details, Israel was formed in 1948 and immediately war was declared. Largely with help from France, Israel survived the first war. Over the years, Israel has become better at defending itself. In 1967, they surprised everyone by surviving when destruction seemed inevitable. Mostly by a first strike on the Egyptian air force, taking the Sinai, and eliminating Egypt's taste for a takeover. They made peace with Jordan, which, combined with the relative peace with Egypt, made them a little more secure.

Today, of course, this would be handled differently. We were still in the transition from colonialism to nationalism in 1948, and the powers in the world didn't consider the will and the feelings of non-powers. And remember that the people who chose Israel in the 1890s were those who were more religious and believed in the Zionist movement. So they wanted Jerusalem as a capital, for historic and emotional reasons. It was both an easy decision and a stupid decision.

Again, I think we're stuck with it today. It's more thoroughly a post-colonial world, and simply moving eight million people out of danger is impractical. And Israel is very built up today. However they got there, they had good reasons and the right to settle. Of our states, Virginia is the closest in population to Israel - and much larger. Would it be possible to "move" Virginia if we had to? Maybe. But it would be quite painful, even in a friendly world. The people of Israel do not face a friendly world.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats interesting - I didn't know Alaska had been suggested

Excellent alternative history book about it: The Yiddish Policemen's Union

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Israel is not a "force for peace" in the Middle East. They're not even trying for peace - they're actively pursuing policies that make things worse, that's my point.

How do you actively pursue peace with people who feel that not only do you not belong on the land, but that you should be exterminated?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How do you actively pursue peace with people who feel that not only do you not belong on the land, but that you should be exterminated?

A step at a time, maybe start with the West Bank?

I'm not saying there still aren't issues but I think the Palestinians there are going a relatively good job.

[NobodyHere]

If Israel gives back the West Bank, what do you think happens:

1) Palestinians (especially Hamas) gives up their desire to wipe out Israel

2) Palestinians demand more territory for "peace".


I'm thinkin the latter.

[JPhillips]

Israel needs peace for it's own survival. Demographics show that it can't remain a Jewish democracy with it's current policies. It will either stop being Jewish or stop being a democracy and become an apartheid state. When that happens, whatever tenuous international support it has will be very hard pressed to continue to support Israel, and Israel can't exist without international support.

[ISiddiqui]

Taking away a major reason for discontent wouldn't take away a huge issue for the violent forces? And people wonder why peace doesn't happen - most people don't vote for the violent option unless they are really, really pissed off.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's not going to happen overnight with the wave of a magic wand, but it's got to start somewhere, with some sort of gesture. And Israel so far has stubbornly refused to make basically any even remotely significant gesture.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If Israel gives back the West Bank, what do you think happens:

1) Palestinians (especially Hamas) gives up their desire to wipe out Israel

2) Palestinians demand more territory for "peace".


I'm thinkin the latter.

It centers on Jerusalem. Both sides want it as their capital and feel it's there for keeping (despite the original plans for being a U.N. city).

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Israel needs peace for it's own survival. Demographics show that it can't remain a Jewish democracy with it's current policies. It will either stop being Jewish or stop being a democracy and become an apartheid state. When that happens, whatever tenuous international support it has will be very hard pressed to continue to support Israel, and Israel can't exist without international support.

Are you talking birth rates within Israel (Israeli Jews vs. Arab Israelis)?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...state_solution

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's not going to happen overnight with the wave of a magic wand, but it's got to start somewhere, with some sort of gesture. And Israel so far has stubbornly refused to make basically any even remotely significant gesture.

Why would you make a significant gesture to people who have made it abundantly clear that they want to destroy you? People with a backwards culture, strong penchant for violence, and a history of human rights abuses. Maybe when they emerge from the Stone Age Israel can talk gestures.

And I'm not some huge pro-Israel cheerleader. But the whitewashing and whiteknighting of the Palestinians over the last decade is crazy.

[flere-imsaho]

The whole area should be made into a UN-controlled theme park with exceptionally limited entries each year (like maybe 100,000 people/year) and the Israelis and Palestinians both moved to Canada and Australia, respectively.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But the whitewashing and whiteknighting of the Palestinians over the last decade is crazy.

Beautiful. Glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers the PLO and their "contributions" to society.