4 ms·

> stop supporting the abusive policies of Israel Really? You had to drag Israel into that? You're aware that the only "abuse" Arabs are actually angry about is

> stop supporting the abusive policies of Israel Really? You had to drag Israel into that? You're aware that the only "abuse" Arabs are actually angry about is the fact that Israel exists at all? I'm an Arab so let me tell you, any stupidity that is committed in the West Bank is overblown by Arabs to delegitimate Israel which is part of Arabs quest to get rid of Israel altogether. They consider the whole of Israel to be occupied territory, this is why whether Israel keeps on building in the West Bank or not is meaningless for peace. They would have to stop building everywhere in Israel, pack up and go somewhere else to end the conflict. This is why many in Israel see the West Bank settlement as a secondary issue when it comes to bringing real peace although they are aware that it's bad for their image...

rbanffy 13y ago
danenania's point remains valid if the Israel part is omitted. I grew up under a military dictatorship endorsed by the US and I can tell you there are still lots of people very resentful of that support. Reducing foreign intervention is the cheapest way to demotivate potential terrorists. Unfortunately, doing so now would risk making them believe they won something.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  That would only demotivate terrorists against us. They still have plenty of other targets. I don't see how isolationism for the states will actually make the world better. We tried it before, it didn't work.
  - D9u 13y ago
    Isolationism and non intervention are two divergent ideals...
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > They still have plenty of other targets. As long as they are internal affairs, it's their problem. If the problems cross borders, there are international organizations with proper authority do deal with them. When one country decides to make a military intervention, the international bodies are further weakened.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      What international police force with proper authority are you talking about? NATO? The UN? I think most of the world is actually against a world-wide police force with any real authority.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - ars 13y ago
      > international organizations with proper authority do deal with them. Are you kidding? The UN has no authority unless given to it by the country involved, which of course they won't. (Example: Syria and chemical weapons.) Plus the UN lost most of it's moral authority by allowing jokes like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Hu... to exist for years. It's cute how they tried to fix it by starting a new council to replace it (instead of simply fixing it) - and the new council appears to be "the UN council to criticize Israel and ignore everyone else". The UN is a joke. They are not weakened by country's military intervention, they are weakened because they have no legitimacy in anyone's eyes because of their own policies.
- ars 13y ago
  > danenania's point remains valid if the Israel part is omitted. You mean "only if". The Muslims who hate Jews (and via extension Israel), are happy to hate America without any help from America's policies. It makes no difference what Israel does - they will hate Jews and Israel without reservations and without end. The only thing Israel can do is make them scared, which will hopefully keep their hate in theory and not in practice. Danenania: Are you really naive enough to believe that if Israel makes "peace", and/or gives up land it will help? Israel made peace with Egypt, and gave up tons of land - but the people there still hate Israel and wish for its destruction. Israel made peace with Jordan and gave up land and water - but the people of Jordan still hate Israel. You really think it's America's policies that cause the hate? It's not. It's what America stands for - primarily freedom of religion, and the acceptance of secularism.
  - danenania 13y ago
    Regardless of one's perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the fact remains that providing extensive military support to a nation that is a symbol of oppression in the region greatly increases the risk of terrorist attacks against the US. Save for a tiny elite, there is no corresponding benefit for the American people that justifies this risk, while the costs are many.
    - ars 13y ago
      You mean a symbol of freedom not oppression. I am aware of how jealous the Arabs are of Israel, and how they wish they could also have those freedoms. It's of course part of the reason that the Arab administrations demonize Israel so much - so that their own people don't complain about their own countries. But that's exactly why the US should support them so strongly, this is what America was founded on. Even if there is no benefit. > greatly increases the risk of terrorist attacks against the US. No it doesn't. America is also a symbol of freedom, just like Israel and they hate America just fine, even without mentioning Israel. But you are wrong about the benefits though, just for the consumer an enormous amount of technology comes out of Israel. And for America to turn away from Israel would be the same as renouncing the principles America was founded on. I hope to never see a day when America doesn't at least try to uphold these values (even if the actions aren't what they should, at least the ideal is there). I'm sure you've head the saying about trading security for liberty. And the same is true for ideals. Sometimes you have to fight for your ideals. Even if there is a cost. The downsides of having no ideals at all is just not worth it.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
There needs to be more good faith from both sides; until then it will be quite a mess. As a stable functioning democracy, the Israeli people really should decide to stop the settlements even though that won't bring about peace: it does them no real good while merely agitating an already volatile situation. The Palestinians (including Gaza and Hezbollah) should also develop their government into something not dysfunctional, and should recognize Israel's right to exist. Then we could move on to the next step, but they must start with baby steps. America can't just exit from this or other worldwide situation. Isolationism will only make things worse. Ya, we do make mistakes and we could do better, but just disappearing won't bring about any meaningful peace. We can argue all day if its worse for civilians to be killed by drones or the Taliban, but they are still dead.
- danenania 13y ago
  The US can't prevent regional conflicts. Getting involved just helps them to spiral out of control and simultaneously puts America's own neck on the line. If there were actually a situation where a so-called adversary presented a legitimate threat to the US if left alone, it might be a different debate, but that hasn't been the case for many years. None of the states that the US is currently fighting in could hope to threaten it militarily in their wildest dreams. Iran, for example, which we are supposed to be so frightened of, has 1/45th the gdp and roughy 1/100th the military budget of the US. The US could cut its military budget by half and go into full defensive mode and still be completely untouchable by state actors, while removing the primary motivation for non-state attacks. True, the taliban might still kill people, just as plenty of regimes that the US supports like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain kill those it opposes. The US can't fix the world. It has enough problems of its own to worry about.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    The US could cut its military budget by more than half and not have to even become less offensive. It might need to stop building weapon systems to win a war against the Soviet Union though. Setting aside the tanks that are built solely to keep congressmen in office, consider US carrier groups — around which the entire US surface fleet is built — it's an open scandal that military exercises with allies frequently result in US carriers being taken out by diesel subs and cruise missiles, but rather than realize that the carrier group is now just as obsolete as the battleship flotilla, the rules of the game get changed. It's like the Japanese planning for Midway all over again (where naval cadets did exactly what the US did and annihilated the Japanese forces so they changed the rules and ran the simulation again).

rbanffy 13y ago

danenania's point remains valid if the Israel part is omitted. I grew up under a military dictatorship endorsed by the US and I can tell you there are still lots of people very resentful of that support. Reducing foreign intervention is the cheapest way to demotivate potential terrorists. Unfortunately, doing so now would risk making them believe they won something.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
That would only demotivate terrorists against us. They still have plenty of other targets. I don't see how isolationism for the states will actually make the world better. We tried it before, it didn't work.
- D9u 13y ago
  Isolationism and non intervention are two divergent ideals...
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > They still have plenty of other targets. As long as they are internal affairs, it's their problem. If the problems cross borders, there are international organizations with proper authority do deal with them. When one country decides to make a military intervention, the international bodies are further weakened.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    What international police force with proper authority are you talking about? NATO? The UN? I think most of the world is actually against a world-wide police force with any real authority.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - ars 13y ago
    > international organizations with proper authority do deal with them. Are you kidding? The UN has no authority unless given to it by the country involved, which of course they won't. (Example: Syria and chemical weapons.) Plus the UN lost most of it's moral authority by allowing jokes like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Hu... to exist for years. It's cute how they tried to fix it by starting a new council to replace it (instead of simply fixing it) - and the new council appears to be "the UN council to criticize Israel and ignore everyone else". The UN is a joke. They are not weakened by country's military intervention, they are weakened because they have no legitimacy in anyone's eyes because of their own policies.
ars 13y ago
> danenania's point remains valid if the Israel part is omitted. You mean "only if". The Muslims who hate Jews (and via extension Israel), are happy to hate America without any help from America's policies. It makes no difference what Israel does - they will hate Jews and Israel without reservations and without end. The only thing Israel can do is make them scared, which will hopefully keep their hate in theory and not in practice. Danenania: Are you really naive enough to believe that if Israel makes "peace", and/or gives up land it will help? Israel made peace with Egypt, and gave up tons of land - but the people there still hate Israel and wish for its destruction. Israel made peace with Jordan and gave up land and water - but the people of Jordan still hate Israel. You really think it's America's policies that cause the hate? It's not. It's what America stands for - primarily freedom of religion, and the acceptance of secularism.
- danenania 13y ago
  Regardless of one's perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the fact remains that providing extensive military support to a nation that is a symbol of oppression in the region greatly increases the risk of terrorist attacks against the US. Save for a tiny elite, there is no corresponding benefit for the American people that justifies this risk, while the costs are many.
  - ars 13y ago
    You mean a symbol of freedom not oppression. I am aware of how jealous the Arabs are of Israel, and how they wish they could also have those freedoms. It's of course part of the reason that the Arab administrations demonize Israel so much - so that their own people don't complain about their own countries. But that's exactly why the US should support them so strongly, this is what America was founded on. Even if there is no benefit. > greatly increases the risk of terrorist attacks against the US. No it doesn't. America is also a symbol of freedom, just like Israel and they hate America just fine, even without mentioning Israel. But you are wrong about the benefits though, just for the consumer an enormous amount of technology comes out of Israel. And for America to turn away from Israel would be the same as renouncing the principles America was founded on. I hope to never see a day when America doesn't at least try to uphold these values (even if the actions aren't what they should, at least the ideal is there). I'm sure you've head the saying about trading security for liberty. And the same is true for ideals. Sometimes you have to fight for your ideals. Even if there is a cost. The downsides of having no ideals at all is just not worth it.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

There needs to be more good faith from both sides; until then it will be quite a mess. As a stable functioning democracy, the Israeli people really should decide to stop the settlements even though that won't bring about peace: it does them no real good while merely agitating an already volatile situation. The Palestinians (including Gaza and Hezbollah) should also develop their government into something not dysfunctional, and should recognize Israel's right to exist. Then we could move on to the next step, but they must start with baby steps. America can't just exit from this or other worldwide situation. Isolationism will only make things worse. Ya, we do make mistakes and we could do better, but just disappearing won't bring about any meaningful peace. We can argue all day if its worse for civilians to be killed by drones or the Taliban, but they are still dead.

danenania 13y ago
The US can't prevent regional conflicts. Getting involved just helps them to spiral out of control and simultaneously puts America's own neck on the line. If there were actually a situation where a so-called adversary presented a legitimate threat to the US if left alone, it might be a different debate, but that hasn't been the case for many years. None of the states that the US is currently fighting in could hope to threaten it militarily in their wildest dreams. Iran, for example, which we are supposed to be so frightened of, has 1/45th the gdp and roughy 1/100th the military budget of the US. The US could cut its military budget by half and go into full defensive mode and still be completely untouchable by state actors, while removing the primary motivation for non-state attacks. True, the taliban might still kill people, just as plenty of regimes that the US supports like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain kill those it opposes. The US can't fix the world. It has enough problems of its own to worry about.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  The US could cut its military budget by more than half and not have to even become less offensive. It might need to stop building weapon systems to win a war against the Soviet Union though. Setting aside the tanks that are built solely to keep congressmen in office, consider US carrier groups — around which the entire US surface fleet is built — it's an open scandal that military exercises with allies frequently result in US carriers being taken out by diesel subs and cruise missiles, but rather than realize that the carrier group is now just as obsolete as the battleship flotilla, the rules of the game get changed. It's like the Japanese planning for Midway all over again (where naval cadets did exactly what the US did and annihilated the Japanese forces so they changed the rules and ran the simulation again).