RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama?

RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 12:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery "Interesting" is a musician term: "How did you like the performance?" "It was...interesting." Ahhh. Speaking of which Ive only practiced an hour all weekend, time to pull out the guitar!

rawtape -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 12:39:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy An interesting case if you ignore their sponsorship of terrorism and fundamentalist leadership that will never waiver from its goal of a world of only Muslims. So Willy, are you suggesting that the Mosaddegh administration was fundamentalist before the CIA-led coup? And you are aware that it was the US-backed Shah's regime that eliminated most of the potential opposition, right, leaving only Khomeini and his cronies to stage the revolution and seize power? Very frankly, I see Iran's support of Hamas and Hizbollah as aspects of realpolitik. First it curries them favour and influence in the Arab street. Second, and more importantly, it lets Israel know that attacking Iran will not be a war fought on just one front. Now whether Israel heeds that now is an entirely different issue. Meir Dagan, upon resigning his post as chief of Mossad suggested that he, Army Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Chief of Shin Bet Yuval Diskin, and Amos Yadlin, director of military intelligence, all of whom retired recently, sided with Dagan to block attempts by Netanyahu and Barak to attack Iran, because they thought it would be a strategic disaster. For that matter, it's not as if other countries don't support "terrorists" either for strategic gains. What do you call the American funding and support of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the Contras in Nicaragua? And finally, suggesting that Iranians want a world of only Muslims betrays first, a severe misunderstanding of the schism between Shiah and Sunni in the Middle East, and second, the tendency (massive generalization on my part, I admit) of Iranians to identify as Persians and look down on Arabs. They want strategic power and influence, yes, but wouldn't you too, if there was a nuclear-armed local superpower in the neighborhood, and if all your other neighbours view you as a heretic while being client-states of a nation that sees you as an enemy?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 12:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape They want strategic power and influence, yes, but wouldn't you too, if there was a nuclear-armed local superpower in the neighborhood, and if all your other neighbours view you as a heretic while being client-states of a nation that sees you as an enemy? Yes. Try not making yourself the enemy of a nation that just wants to be left alone, instead of vowing their annhilation.

rawtape -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 12:54:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape They want strategic power and influence, yes, but wouldn't you too, if there was a nuclear-armed local superpower in the neighborhood, and if all your other neighbours view you as a heretic while being client-states of a nation that sees you as an enemy? Yes. Try not making yourself the enemy of a nation that just wants to be left alone, instead of vowing their annhilation. Good. And if you're talking about Ahmadinejad's quip you might try looking at more accurate translations.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 1:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape They want strategic power and influence, yes, but wouldn't you too, if there was a nuclear-armed local superpower in the neighborhood, and if all your other neighbours view you as a heretic while being client-states of a nation that sees you as an enemy? Yes. Try not making yourself the enemy of a nation that just wants to be left alone, instead of vowing their annhilation. Good. And if you're talking about Ahmadinejad's quip you might try looking at more accurate translations. Dont be ridiculous, he's said it at least half a dozen times.

SternSkipper -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:12:51 PM)
quote: For that matter, it's not as if other countries don't support "terrorists" either for strategic gains. What do you call the American funding and support of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the Contras in Nicaragua? What can I say? Our republican Presidents have never adequately understood the peace corps concept. But I'll tell ya... this business of trying to get curry flavor from hanging out with Hamas and Hizbollah... not a wise choice... next it'll be drugs, then leather jackets, and before ya know it, you'll be 'bitchin out' for some big dude in the joint.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:37:50 PM)
"Good. And if you're talking about Ahmadinejad's quip you might try looking at more accurate translations. " I have been very suscpicious of translations for a long time. My Grandfather was quite hard of hearing and as such learned at least partly how to read lips. During the cold war a Russian leader was on TV saying something but an English translation was dubbed in of course. While he admitted that he didn't know the exact translation he said he was absolutely sure that the person had not said what they said he said. He was Polak, and those languages are similar enough, plus the fact that many from that region were multilingual. I've also seen a few things about that concerning Osama Bin Laden. Doubts have been raised by some US translators and in fact, some of them doubt that Bin Laden was actually the one who said them. They cited other cues, like garb etc. and how it digressed from what was supposedly known about Bin Laden's personal beliefs. I'll say it again, I trust noone when it comes to shit like this. I think there is very good reason not to, and wonder just how much of the world's problems are based simply on misunderstandings. I am not really for the abolition of Israel, but I think they certainly could use a regime change. So could we, and I don't mean republicans versus democrats. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:40:02 PM)
"Dont be ridiculous, he's said it at least half a dozen times." And what if it was translated incorrectly every time ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:41:38 PM)
"Progress for the last 50 years can be summed up in one sentence. The phones got smaller and the assholes got bigger - SternSkipper 6/14/2011 " I may have to plageurize(sp) that if you don't mind. T^T

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Dont be ridiculous, he's said it at least half a dozen times." And what if it was translated incorrectly every time ? T^T Then he needs to learn to speak English. He had plenty of opportunity when he helped kidnap and hold 53 Americans for over a year.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 3:53:12 PM)
"Then he needs to learn to speak English. He had plenty of opportunity when he helped kidnap and hold 53 Americans for over a year. " He did that, really ? That's one awesome motherfucker then. And of course they imprisoned those people, who were warned to get the fuck out, for no reason at all right ? T^T

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 6:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Then he needs to learn to speak English. He had plenty of opportunity when he helped kidnap and hold 53 Americans for over a year. " He did that, really ? That's one awesome motherfucker then. And of course they imprisoned those people, who were warned to get the fuck out, for no reason at all right ? T^T there was a reason. To enhance Khomeni's popularity.

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 9:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "Then he needs to learn to speak English. He had plenty of opportunity when he helped kidnap and hold 53 Americans for over a year. " He did that, really ? That's one awesome motherfucker then. And of course they imprisoned those people, who were warned to get the fuck out, for no reason at all right ? T^T there was a reason. To enhance Khomeni's popularity. I suppose that's one possible reason. Other potential explanations might include US support for the Shah's regime, US complicity in installing the Shah's regime, anger at US silence over the murderous excesses of the Shah's regime, or anger at US supplies of arms used to kill Shah's opponents and oppressing/resisting the popular will. There's quite a few more along these lines. Or it might have just been resentment at unwanted foreign influence and interference is Iranian affairs and culture, imposition of an alien culture ....... Did I mention US exploitation of Iranian resources? Or any mix of the above you like ..... the possible reasons I've listed do sound a trifle more motivating to me. Nor, unlike Willbur's suggestion, are they self-serving, which may be relevant.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 9:41:13 PM)
So seizing a foreign embassy would enhance his popularity. What possible reasons could there be for this ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/3/2011 9:59:13 PM)
"Other potential explanations might include US support for the Shah's regime, US complicity ............" Dammit ! I wanted his answer in the raw. But now that you spilled it I agree. What can get a peanut farmer elected President ? Oh and while we're at it, for almost ten years Bin Laden does nothing to draw attention. He lives in a fucking hole in the desert. All the sudden he is a priority. You think maybe Obama saw the same potential increase in popularity ? I am an equal opportunity motherfucker though. That is a stab at Obama, and I know it. But really if the republicans get the majority in this government again (that is two branches), I am going to come down there and build an addition to your house and retire there. I'll even learn the building codes there is you insist. This fucking oil regime shit has to be stopped. I know we are on the oil standard, but all the republicans want to do is try to take the oil and that antagonaizes the people who have the oil. And I believe that the republicans ran McCain who alluded to the possibility of a hunded year war, specifically to make sure he loses so that a democrat would preside over the aftermath of the shit they caused. I'm not saying Obama is any kind of saviour or anything of the sort. Far from it. But some of us who have a fucking brain supported Obama BECAUSE that would send a message to the Arab world that we do not support what the Bushes & Co. did to them. Arabs are not that syupid, in fact some of them in covert opertions are catching up to the Mossad in skill. I think alot of them are aware that many of us do not support this shit, but we can do nothing about it. Electing Obama says to them that at least we tried, somehow. And how this related to Israel ? I think the value of the Bushes loyalty is apparent in the actions of Prescott Bush. They follow the money. Although based on fact, that is my opinion. T^T

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/4/2011 4:53:12 PM)
At this point, we have 95 posts and still no one has identified a single benefit to the US from its alliance with Israel. At what point do we conclude that there are no benefits to the US? At what point do we conclude that all the benefits are flowing to Israel? There is little doubt that Israel benefits greatly from its relationship with the US. To the extent that Israel might not survive without it, according to some. Managing the US relationship is a constant theme, almost an obsession in the Israeli media.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/4/2011 6:33:31 PM)
You ain't gonna believe this, but I am the one who actually can. You said one right ? That's all I got. I only know this through someone I knew, because of their job at a certain company. During the 1980s, we were "selling" fighter jets to Israel. I use the term "selling" loosely of course. Well once they got them they performed about twenty modifications to enhance their abilities. Someone in that company found out about a couple of them. Whether Israel "let" us use "their" modifications to our jets is unknown. But you know how sneaky we are, we probably did it anyway, that is if the company revealed anything. You see certain modifications require facilitation during the design and/or manufacturing process, so they had no choice but to reveal the fact. Quite the ally eh ? Sorry, but that's all I have. Give everybody about a year and they might come up with something else. At that time I will stand enlightened. T^T

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/4/2011 7:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or You ain't gonna believe this, but I am the one who actually can. You said one right ? That's all I got. I only know this through someone I knew, because of their job at a certain company. During the 1980s, we were "selling" fighter jets to Israel. I use the term "selling" loosely of course. Well once they got them they performed about twenty modifications to enhance their abilities. Someone in that company found out about a couple of them. Whether Israel "let" us use "their" modifications to our jets is unknown. But you know how sneaky we are, we probably did it anyway, that is if the company revealed anything. You see certain modifications require facilitation during the design and/or manufacturing process, so they had no choice but to reveal the fact. Quite the ally eh ? Sorry, but that's all I have. Give everybody about a year and they might come up with something else. At that time I will stand enlightened. T^T Gee T ^ T, I can do better than that! (this is a bit like show'n'tell isn't it? ) [:D] One benefit is that the US gets the use of formidable proxy army in the ME. Just like Iran has Hezbollah to project its influence in areas where Iran has no physical presence, the US uses Israel to fight its proxy wars for it. The last last Israeli invasion of Lebanon (yes I know, there have been so many Israeli invasions of Lebanon haven't there?) can be seen in this light. Israel doesn't appear to have any issues about doing the US's dirty work for it. Whether having the use of a proxy army actually generates a nett benefit for the US is another question. It could be argued that without US support for Israel, it wouldn't need a proxy army in the region. Alliance with/support for Israel comes with a hefty price tag - economically, politically and diplomatically - and potentially jeopardises US access to the oil it desperately needs. And there's lots of other suitable candidates for the role who would come with a lot less baggage (eg as argued above, Iran). And there are good arguments not to meddle in the region in the first place. Ultimately whether the positives of having Israel as a proxy army outweigh the negatives is a value judgement. It's far from clear cut. That being the case, it seems a big ask to argue that havng Israel as a proxy army justifies the huge price the US pays for it.

Termyn8or -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/4/2011 7:32:53 PM)
"the US uses Israel to fight its proxy wars for it." We can get mercenaries cheaper. T^T

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel: A Lens for Viewing Obama? (7/4/2011 7:49:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "the US uses Israel to fight its proxy wars for it." We can get mercenaries cheaper. T^T Good point. Far be it from me to suggest that the US gets value for it's its dollar from Israel. If Blackwater and other 'contractors' were used instead, at least most of the dollars would stay in US hands. Given Israel's track record on war crimes, belligerence and human rights abuses, employing mercenaries could well be a more moral arrangement. It isn't stretching things at all to describe the Israeli Govt as an organised crime operation.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875