Why isn't America fighting along side Israel?

[TheDude]

The way I see it, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East and they are being attacked by a common enemy, Hezbollah. Am I confused or isn't an attack on an allied nation especially by a common enemy considered an attack on us? Would we not attack N. Korea if the fired missiles at Japan?

 

[fossten]

The way I see it, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East and they are being attacked by a common enemy, Hezbollah. Am I confused or isn't an attack on an allied nation especially by a common enemy considered an attack on us? Would we not attack N. Korea if the fired missiles at Japan?

We don't want to upset the Saudis. It's that simple.

I refer you to my "Losing war with Islam" thread for my opinion of this, btw.

 

[Calabrio]

...probably to prevent the undeniable start of WW3 and war with Iran.

And because most Democrats don't support Israel in this conflict, so it'd be difficult to politically undertake such a thing

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Do the evan need our help?
They do have 1 of the best airforces in the world

 

[TheDude]

Do the evan need our help?
They do have 1 of the best airforces in the world

Not the question if they need it or not, they could in all probability take on Iran, Syria and Lebanon at once and win in a full out no holds barred war. But not helping an ally versus a common enemy just seems wrong.

 

[TheDude]

...probably to prevent the undeniable start of WW3 and war with Iran.

And because most Democrats don't support Israel in this conflict, so it'd be difficult to politically undertake such a thing

Then I ask you, why are we scared or reluctant to go against Iran if they are the true maniacs with WMD's?

 

[TheDude]

We don't want to upset the Saudis. It's that simple.

I refer you to my "Losing war with Islam" thread for my opinion of this, btw.

So were basically telling Israel, "Live or die on your own good buddy, but we don't want to upset Muhammed." That's sad...

 

[fossten]

So were basically telling Israel, "Live or die on your own good buddy, but we don't want to upset Muhammed." That's sad...

No, WE'RE not. The anti-war Democrats and the anti-Semite MSM are. Israel is NOT the buddy of those people. Only Bush and his admin are the friends of Israel. And now, after all that "Bush lied" crap, you think he's gonna leap into another war? Not a chance. Your buddies on the wrong side of this stung him pretty badly and he's gonna think twice about getting into it again. I hate it but it's true and you know it.

 

[fossten]

Then I ask you, why are we scared or reluctant to go against Iran if they are the true maniacs with WMD's?

See my above post for answer to this question.

 

[Calabrio]

Then I ask you, why are we scared or reluctant to go against Iran if they are the true maniacs with WMD's?
_________________

So were basically telling Israel, "Live or die on your own good buddy, but we don't want to upset Muhammed." That's sad...

Why are we scared or reluctant to go after the dominant Muslim state in the Middle East?

Because the country doesn't have the political will to do it. Yet.

Because by doing so we'll set off a powder keg in the middle of the middle of the world. Fuel prices will go through the ceiling, our robust economy will likely come to a grinding hault as oil prices cross the $100 a barrell barrier.

Because Muslims around the world would take arms and probably riot throughout Europe. And because we would likely see a surge in terrorism in this country.

Furthermore, liberals, American-haters, and the mainstream media in this country would never let us fight it correctly. The Iranians have a conventional army, but they will also resort to Asymetrical terrorism fighting, which means we'll have to kill large numbers of civilians.

The Middle East would explode. Europe would be in chaos. And in this country, the political left would be undermining us, like the proverbial 5th column they so accurately represent. Maybe the New York Times could print the "secret invasion" date on their front page.

However, I've about concluded that this attack on Iran is inevitable and must be done. The sooner the better. Iran is a threat to the U.S. A lot of people were holding out hope that the segment of the population that supported Democracy might be able to institute change, but this is increasingly unlikely. Perhaps something can be done covert, but war is looking like the only answer.


And you're right, our lack of support for Israel is sad. Fortunately, Bush is much more supportive of Israel than Clinton was, and the Israelis are the first to acknowledge that.

It is interesting how the American Jewish community classically votes for Democrats, despite the fact the Democrat party always abandons or sides against Israel.

 

[fossten]

Why are we scared or reluctant to go after the dominant Muslim state in the Middle East?

Because the country doesn't have the political will to do it. Yet.

Because by doing so we'll set off a powder keg in the middle of the middle of the world. Fuel prices will go through the ceiling, our robust economy will likely come to a grinding hault as oil prices cross the $100 a barrell barrier.

Because Muslims around the world would take arms and probably riot throughout Europe. And because we would likely see a surge in terrorism in this country.

Furthermore, liberals, American-haters, and the mainstream media in this country would never let us fight it correctly. The Iranians have a conventional army, but they will also resort to Asymetrical terrorism fighting, which means we'll have to kill large numbers of civilians.

The Middle East would explode. Europe would be in chaos. And in this country, the political left would be undermining us, like the proverbial 5th column they so accurately represent. Maybe the New York Times could print the "secret invasion" date on their front page.

However, I've about concluded that this attack on Iran is inevitable and must be done. The sooner the better. Iran is a threat to the U.S. A lot of people were holding out hope that the segment of the population that supported Democracy might be able to institute change, but this is increasingly unlikely. Perhaps something can be done covert, but war is looking like the only answer.


And you're right, our lack of support for Israel is sad. Fortunately, Bush is much more supportive of Israel than Clinton was, and the Israelis are the first to acknowledge that.

It is interesting how the American Jewish community classically votes for Democrats, despite the fact the Democrat party always abandons or sides against Israel.

I'm seeing with you 20/20 on this.

I did have one thought though - if we did go in and take over Iran, do you think the other Arab countries like Syria and Saudi, seeing the handwriting on the wall, would maybe sue for peace somehow? I've seen it before, where bullies stood up to by the US backed down. (Soviet Union)

Or is it 100% that they would have to be next?

 

[Calabrio]

I don't know?

Iran may very well be the head of the snake everyone has been looking to cut off.

I don't know what kind of official state response from those nations, they haven't historically been very bold. Even when they would team up and attack a much weaker Israel, some would do it secretly. The cry for jihad would ring through the region though and it could be really ugly.

If the World Council of Imans called for a spiritual jihad, that would mobilize the entire Muslim population of the world to take arms against who ever they were instructed to.

This is entirely possible to happen.

But without the oil money and support from Iran, some of those countries would be dependent upon the west for their very survival. All of the Mid East countries aren't oil rich.

Sadly, it's looking increasingly inevitable. I just can't think of a peaceful solution that will disarm Iran, or civilize them... I'm trying, but I nothing works. And it's an imperfect answer with all kinds of negative consequences. But, just like the war in Iraq, people need to weight the alternatives.

I'm almost of the thinking that it's time to just crush that region, take over the oil, and then just periodical chain gun the resistance for the next 50 years. Then, when the oil runs out, come on home.

Whatever happens, I fully expect the world to be very different in 30 years. Radically different.

 

[fossten]

I really liked Thomas Sowell's take on this.

From TheAtlasphere.com

Opinion Editorial

Peacemongers and War

By Thomas Sowell
Jul 21, 2006

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications, and test those implications against hard facts.

“Peace” movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called “peace” movements — that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said “war is hell” more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia — not by cease fires or bowing to “world opinion,” and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

“World opinion,” the U.N., and “peace movements” have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations, and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places — but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them. Why didn't Argentina attack these little islands before?

Before there were “peace” movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now, “world opinion” condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored “world opinion” and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of “peace” movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, “peace” movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm “as an example to others.”

British Labour Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If “peace” movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war “peace” movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

“Peace” movements don't bring peace, but war.

 

[Calabrio]

Great op-ed

 

[TheDude]

I'm almost of the thinking that it's time to just crush that region, take over the oil, and then just periodical chain gun the resistance for the next 50 years. Then, when the oil runs out, come on home.

Isn't that the equivalent of being a pirate?

On a side note, have you changed your view of 'The Saudis are our allies' in light of recent events?

 

[Barwick]

Do the evan need our help?
They do have 1 of the best airforces in the world

Exactly. They don't need our help. They could declare war on every single Muslim nation in the world, and they'd come out with Israel owning hundreds of millions of square miles of land, and no more Islamic nations. And we wouldn't have to lift a finger.

 

[Calabrio]

...I don't know if that makes us a pirate... It's a terrible option, but ruling out genocide, I fail to see how you can quickly reform an entire region and culture to co-exist with the rest of the world. And, if I have to chose between periodic bombs going off in Pizza shops and buses here in the U.S. and the risk of a dirty bomb in NYC, or turning that region into glass.... it's a no brainer.

What seems to be forgotten is that Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East is not traditionally conservative. In foreign policy terms, it's not a "realist" approach but a very "idealistic" theory. He's attempting to interject freedom and free markets into the region. Working on the premise that true Democracies don't go to war, he's trying to change hearts and minds.

For some reasons this obvious element of the policy is missed by so many Bush-haters. There were so many reasons for going into Iraq- threat to the U.S., military strategy within the region, and the hope that by inserting a positive democracy, that trend would spread through the region. The ultimate goal being us NOT having to wipe them out with B-52s.

Sorry, I don't know specifically what I said about the Saudi's that you're refering to.

 

[fossten]

Isn't that the equivalent of being a pirate?

You would be incorrect. A pirate by definition plunders another country or ship WITHOUT a commission from a legally recognized country or official. If we went into the Middle East, our soldiers would be commissioned by the USA, which is a legally recognized entity.

 

[mach8]

Tha Saudi's are our allies only to the extent that it benefits the interest of the Saudi ruling family. this should not be any supprise, nor should it cause us to view the Saudi's to harshly because that is the only basis of any alliances made by any country. Protecting THEIR self interest, they are looking out for their welfare, just as we seek to safeguard our welfare.

The political will for America to act is the pivotal force in the world today. America still out produces everyone in the world, has the most powerful and quickest reacting military in the world as well as the deepest pockets. Keeping America "diversified" is vital for countries to act without taking into account repercussions from the west. As Japan found out, and as many in Japan knew at the time, giving America a reason to come together and focus its latent power is a poor move.

I fail to see why the citizens of the world continue to allow governments to exploit them in conflicts which can often be ended or stopped before they get out of hand by eliminating those fueling the problem. The root causes of problems can exist for decades until a catalyst comes along. History has shown us that the elimination of only a few key people could have saved the lives of millions. While the, yes murder, of less than probably one hundred in the middle east would not solve the root problems there it would avert massive distruction and the loss of thousands of lives in the area. If those in power knew they'd be the first to be sacrificed in a war they might not be so eager to sacrifice the lives of others. Cut off the head

 

[stang99x]

I love reading this chit! Its simple. The original attack was a simple two man abduction was it not? Do you find that a good reason for us to ante up, sling around a couple billion bucks, and march on the ME? Isreal has it handeled. ANd in the coming days, you'll see them get a much better grip on it. Hezbollah has no fighting force. They are nothing but a bunch of misc. rocket firings and hiding in the safe houses, which isreal will eliminate one at a time. Never forget that isreal is like a doberman, and we hold the leash. We just stood back, took off the leash, and said sick'em boy.

 

[TheDude]

I love reading this chit! Its simple. The original attack was a simple two man abduction was it not? Do you find that a good reason for us to ante up, sling around a couple billion bucks, and march on the ME? Isreal has it handeled. ANd in the coming days, you'll see them get a much better grip on it. Hezbollah has no fighting force. They are nothing but a bunch of misc. rocket firings and hiding in the safe houses, which isreal will eliminate one at a time. Never forget that isreal is like a doberman, and we hold the leash. We just stood back, took off the leash, and said sick'em boy.

Hezbollah is more than a bunch of rag-tag thugs, they are backed by VERY rich people/nations and cold hard cash goes a long way. Before this is over, I really think Israel will suffer greatly.

 

[Calabrio]

Before this is over, I really think Israel will suffer greatly.

This statement takes for granted that they have been suffering for almost a century there at the hands of Islamic mobs and terrorism.

Prior to this, they were enduring repeated suicide bombings, blind rocket attacks on their cities, and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians and soldiers.

How are things are going to get worse?

 

[fossten]

Before this is over, I really think Israel will suffer greatly.

You mean you HOPE.

 

[TheDude]

You mean you HOPE.

Oh boy, where do you get off constantly making these unfounded childish claims?

 

[TheDude]

This statement takes for granted that they have been suffering for almost a century there at the hands of Islamic mobs and terrorism.

Prior to this, they were enduring repeated suicide bombings, blind rocket attacks on their cities, and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians and soldiers.

How are things are going to get worse?

Come on now, do I really have to explain how it can get worse? More frequent suicide attacks with larger payload explosives, stronger missles fired at them, chemical weapons on a large scale etc. etc.

My intention wasn't to mean they were fine and happy prior to this, only that it will get worse now. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been quoted saying something along the lines of "Israel has hit the button to it's own destruction." I don't think he is bluffing.