Confed999

And when they decide to remove the threats to their existance, who will have to clean up the mess?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

troung

"And when they decide to remove the threats to their existance, who will have to clean up the mess?"

Well we have to clean up their messes anyways.

Actually if they lose their military edge things could get more stable around there.

Confed999

My point exactly.
If they lose their edge, and are attacked, they will have no choice but to use the nuclear option. Easier to clean up the small messes.

troung

"If they lose their edge, and are attacked, they will have no choice but to use the nuclear option. Easier to clean up the small messes."

One small mess cost over 200 dead Americans fighting people we didn't have a problem with before hand (Lebanon).

Actually they might become more prone to talk if they lose that "artifical" edge. They were ready to talk to Egypt after what happened in 1973. The whole point of 1973 was to show up an kill as many IDF soldiers as possible. After the IDF was brought into the real world by their losses for the time being they gave up land and made peace with Egypt. They didn't want to have a 1980 war with the renewed arab forces (it "only" took 7 years for the Arabs to field a good army in 1973).

There are only to bones Israel has with the Arabs, the Golan and Palestine, they pull out of those and the problem is really over. Yeah people will still not like them but the problem will end the dying could very well end and people could live again.

The problem is important people on both sides don't want the problem to end... to much money to lose by ending it.

Confed999

How many would die in a nuclear war? How many would die in the resuting anarchy and clean up? Bet more than 200, but I don't consider a person as being worth more than another because of nationality...
They didn't allways hold those positions, so there must be more to it than that.

troung

"How many would die in a nuclear war? How many would die in the resuting anarchy and clean up? Bet more than 200, but I don't consider a person as being worth more than another because of nationality"

Who says there would even be a war? Israel losing an edge makes them more likely to have to talk.

Confed999

Who says their neighbors will be more willing to talk than they are now? Why would they stop a crusade they've been propagandizing for half a century, not including the standard anti-Semitism? Leaving them out manned, out gunned and without allies seems like taking a big chance to me. If you're wrong, you could be sacrificing tens of millions of people, assuming it doesn't escalate into something even bigger. At this point, unless we go totally isolationist anyway, I still have to go with political pressure only.

troung

"Who says their neighbors will be more willing to talk than they are now? Why would they stop a crusade they've been propagandizing for half a century, not including the standard anti-Semitism?"

Actually Syria has been very willing to talk for years and the Palestinians have been as well. Hell most of the Arabs have recongized Israel (OT ever thought how dumb Pakistan looks for not recongizing Israel?). Jordan and Egypt alredy sat down and Syria has wanted to sit down for a long time (1970s). The IDF would not have talked to Egypt if they had not been rocked in 1973.

And don't bring up the terrorism agrument, or I will simply ask how come before Sharon went to Washington IDF troops shot some kids playing sports and then after mortars got fired back they claimed the Palestines broke the ceasefire? Or how come during Lebanon IDF soldiers kept being ordered to attack in responce to ceasefire volations when in fact the IDF troops on the front lines who the "fire" had come at actually claimed later on in fact they had not been fired on?

I'll drop that part if you do

"Leaving them out manned, out gunned and without allies seems like taking a big chance to me. If you're wrong, you could be sacrificing tens of millions of people, assuming it doesn't escalate into something even bigger. At this point, unless we go totally isolationist anyway, I still have to go with political pressure only."

Yeah like we have never left people outgunned and outnumbered when they stopped serving our needs, much less the ones that don't serve our needs and make us look bad

Well cutting off aid wouldn't cause them to massively fall tomorrow. But it would force them to sit down at the table. That is real political pressure.

Giving them an artifical edge and putting billions and billions yearly of needed money into it just gives us dead wieght/a parasite and is no solution at all. That's pouring money down a hole. Of course they make peace and we cut back the money so that is a reason for some not to want the conflict to end on that side and the same from the Palestinians.

Confed999

It appears that way most of the time, but appearances can be deceptive. I see no reason to trust them that much at the current time.
Why not? We support most of their neighbors as well, in one way or another.
Doesn't make it right.
That's political, economic and military pressure. Get everyone to do the same with their neighborhood and I'll go along with it having a chance to work. Without that total cooperation, it's not worth risking the use of even one nuke.

troung

"It appears that way most of the time, but appearances can be deceptive. I see no reason to trust them that much at the current time."

They have wanted to sit down for around 30 years. That's a long time to be deceptive.

"Doesn't make it right."

I see few tears for Cambodia who we brought into the 2nd Indochina war because it suited us and then cut aid to as things got worse for them. I see fewer tears for the Hmong who we dragged into the 2nd Indochina war then cut aid to, resettling a few doesn't make up for most living in refugee camps and them losing a generation of young men.

At least they served out need, some people get a free ride, backstab us, make us unneed enemies and then complain.

"That's political, economic and military pressure. Get everyone to do the same with their neighborhood and I'll go along with it having a chance to work. Without that total cooperation"

We need to put pressure on them for this conflict to end.

"it's not worth risking the use of even one nuke."

You know you are kind of painting them as being the real threat....

I am the only one who agrees with the logic that everyone has them or no one does? Guess so...

Confed999

How long has Israel had an edge on them?
Are you saying it is right? Otherwise I don't see your point.
And while their enemies are recieving only political pressure in the conflict I cannot condone increasing pressure against them on this matter. All or nothing is the only way I see it working. It took more than Israel to get to this point.
If it comes to a battle of survival, I doubt many of the major cities in the region would still be standing, after the point of desperation was reached.
I think only free nations should have them for retaliatory purposes. If everyone has them, the only way to fight the tyrants of the world would be with nukes.

troung

"And while their enemies are recieving only political pressure in the conflict I cannot condone increasing pressure against them on this matter. All or nothing is the only way I see it working. It took more than Israel to get to this point."

Umm cutting off aid doesn't mean they are going to fall apart tomorrow. It doesn't mean the Arabs woudl attack either. But if they lose that artificial edge they will go to the table. The only made peace with Egypt after the 1973 war when Egypt crossed the canal and inflicted big time (for Israel) losses on the IDF.

Sending them weapons and asking them to make peace is a joke. When America does not agree with a nations policy we hit them with sanctions (we did so to Pakistan, Greece, Indonesia, Cambodia, Chile and others), and yet we have not put any real sanctions on Israel. Holding up planes for a month (we did to Israel during the 1980s) is a joke compared to canceling deals like we did to Pakistan. Makes us a part of what they have done over there. They have made us look awful in that region. It's way past guilt by association.

Cutting off military/economic aid is not the same as taking away their guns. It would be to stop FMSing stuff and end the billions we give them a year (always found if funny how the same people who vote againist welfare have no problem giving out 5-6 billion a year). They would of course have to cut back their military as even now they can't afford it even with the aid. Cutting off the aid would be an important sign that we want them at the table. Once there is peace their the defense budgets there would drop anyways (some don't want peace for that very reason).

It's about time we either show we have the pants or admit we are taking it.

"Are you saying it is right? Otherwise I don't see your point."

I'm saying we do what we gotta do. Cutting off this dead wieght which doesn't help out should be a lot easier then the allies we ditched 30 years ago. The only thing stopping us from cutting aid is lobby groups buyign congressmen. As far as allies go they are actually quite useless.

"I think only free nations should have them for retaliatory purposes. If everyone has them, the only way to fight the tyrants of the world would be with nukes."

That would include Chavez and if the Ismalists which won elections in Algeria had not been kicked out by the right wing army after anulling the elections them as well....

"If it comes to a battle of survival, I doubt many of the major cities in the region would still be standing, after the point of desperation was reached."

It's wierd but this actually sounds like nuclear blackmail... we give them money to beat up their neighbors or they simply nuke their nieghbors...

Julie

Me either, but they need to realize that little tidbit of information before they go unbalancing the Pacific for us.

ZFBoxcar

Agreed. If it were just the Harpy's I would say the US was over-reacting, but since its more than that, Israel definitly needs to change its attitude. They are being totally ungrateful. I have hopes that this will knock some sense into them, but who knows?

The problem is only partly money (I mean the reason for selling weapons to China). Its mainly about building bridges and being afraid of burning them. Israel has been a pariah in the region since 48, and from Europe since the 60s. Because of this, the Israeli government does not want to risk sabatoging contacts with other countries. Obviously the US is more important than China and Israel should be showing some gratitude, I'm just explaining some of the rational behind Israeli actions. Because if you think about it, besides being wrong (and if there is any place Israel should be empathetic towards, it's Taiwan) what Israel is/was doing is just stupid.

troung

Sorry this is convoluted but I am on the phone...

"Agreed. If it were just the Harpy's I would say the US was over-reacting, but since its more than that, Israel definitly needs to change its attitude. They are being totally ungrateful. I have hopes that this will knock some sense into them, but who knows? "The problem is only partly money (I mean the reason for selling weapons to China). Its mainly about building bridges and being afraid of burning them. Israel has been a pariah in the region since 48, and from Europe since the 60s. Because of this, the Israeli government does not want to risk sabatoging contacts with other countries. Obviously the US is more important than China and Israel should be showing some gratitude, I'm just explaining some of the rational behind Israeli actions."

I agree with the spirt of your post

I also think some of the problem is actual arrogance.

And then one has shortsighteness as the money Israel makes off these sales in no way would ever add up the aid. I mean look at the AWACs market or the anti radar drone market. Israel almost lost all their aid for about 1 billion dollars.

And then of course one has the money. The French rep for selling to everyone even both sides of a conflict (not well deserved actually check prices on that ) hits Israel rather well. Let us not forget Ethiopia and Eritrea who both got mad because they were getting equipment from Israel at the same time during a war.

And they have the "dirty" arms market dream team with Singapore and South Africa. Those 3 nations have a habit of making rather similar stuff (Tavor/SAR-21, Derby/R-Darter, Kfir/Cheetah C). The sales to China will hurt Americans but Israel has other sales to unfriendly people as well such as Burma (radars, missiles, small arms, artillery etc...), and less then friendly African nations (Uganda, Rwanda, Congo).

At least one group of sales did come back to bite them in the ass, TOW-1s to Iran which ended up with Hezbollah which ended up hitting IDF bunkers and AFVs in Lebanon. Dollar signs clouded vision on that sale...

Now if you want me to I could balance things and bash the EU or US arms sales (don't even get me started on China's) as well just to show it is nothing personal. HK selling to any nasty dictorship, BAE selling Hawks to any nasty dictorship, LM selling to any nasty dictorship, FN selling to any nasty dictorship. I could make a bigger thread about them

"Because if you think about it, besides being wrong (and if there is any place Israel should be empathetic towards, it's Taiwan) what Israel is/was doing is just stupid."

In a very sickening way Israel used to be empathetic towards South Africa and Rhodesia. Well prepare to be shocked but they (ROC/Israel) have worked together in the past (check out the HF-1 or Hai Oui) just Israel went to richer and less pro American pastures (China). It's funny because China sells weapons to the Arabs and Iranians despite these sales from Israel. So it is not even getting influence like American sales are supposed to do its about getting cash.