Last time, provide something to back up your argument.FEOS wrote:
Let's see...historical facts back up STRATFOR's position. Those facts directly contradict your position.
Last time, already done. They're called historical facts. I can understand you not being familiar with them. People use them to support fact-based opinions.Dilbert_X wrote:
Last time, provide something to back up your argument.FEOS wrote:
Let's see...historical facts back up STRATFOR's position. Those facts directly contradict your position.
De jure is supremely relevant, as that is what starts the process of tangible diplomatic relations (like the monetary relationships that you always point to). And you continue to ignore the other countries that recognized Israel right along with the US. There's no anti-US sentiment among the Arabs for them, so your argument (again) falls on its face when presented with historical fact.Dilbert_X wrote:
De jure is irrelavant, the US recognised Israel within 11 minutes, it was pre-agreed and pre-planned.
Last time, provide something to back up your argument.Dilbert_X wrote:
The STRATFOR 'analysis' is anti-arab and pro-Israel. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid like a good soldier.
You need to point them out.FEOS wrote:
Last time, already done. They're called historical facts.
No, you're just picking a step along the path which suits your agenda, its the first step which matters, not the 12th or 50th or 1,000th.De jure is supremely relevant, as that is what starts the process of tangible diplomatic relations
Its based on conjecture, it ignores blatantly significant pieces of history, focuses on irrelevant detail and is entirely one sided against the arabs.Last time, provide something to back up your argument.
Which ones? The ones where US UNSC vetoes don't start until after 1967? Or the ones that show tangible US support to Israel doesn't start until after the Eisenhower administration? Or the ones that show the US sided against Israel (and with Egypt and against the UK and France) in the Suez Crisis in the 50s? All of those have been presented already, and all contradict your foundational argument. Would you care for more?Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to point them out.FEOS wrote:
Last time, already done. They're called historical facts.
No, you're just ignoring the premise of the argument: That anti-US sentiment among the Arab community pre-dated significant US support to Israel. You say anti-US sentiment is a direct result of US support to Israel. Historical facts seem to contradict your position and support STRATFOR's analysis on the topic, showing a distinct lack of US support to Israel prior to the 1967 conflict.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, you're just picking a step along the path which suits your agenda, its the first step which matters, not the 12th or 50th or 1,000th.De jure is supremely relevant, as that is what starts the process of tangible diplomatic relations
I agree. That is a completely accurate assessment of your position.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its based on conjecture, it ignores blatantly significant pieces of history, focuses on irrelevant detailLast time, provide something to back up your argument.
You need to show arab anti-americanism predating 1967 exists for starters.FEOS wrote:
Which ones? The ones where US UNSC vetoes don't start until after 1967? Or the ones that show tangible US support to Israel doesn't start until after the Eisenhower administration? Or the ones that show the US sided against Israel (and with Egypt and against the UK and France) in the Suez Crisis in the 50s? All of those have been presented already, and all contradict your foundational argument. Would you care for more?
Already done. You ignoring it doesn't make it go away.Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to show arab anti-americanism predating 1967 exists for starters.FEOS wrote:
Which ones? The ones where US UNSC vetoes don't start until after 1967? Or the ones that show tangible US support to Israel doesn't start until after the Eisenhower administration? Or the ones that show the US sided against Israel (and with Egypt and against the UK and France) in the Suez Crisis in the 50s? All of those have been presented already, and all contradict your foundational argument. Would you care for more?
No, you need to show that it is relevant, or at least explain how the US's unofficial recognition would drive Arab anger more so than the other countries that did exactly the same thing at roughly the same time...or the countries that officially recognized Israel well before the US did. Thus far, you've done neither.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then you need to show how US support for the creation of Israel in 1948 is irrelevant.
Then you might have an argument.
Still can't see it, unless its in the STRATFOR links I can't access as I don't have a sub.FEOS wrote:
Already done. You ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Of course, the words of the US President are 'unofficial'...No, you need to show that it is relevant, or at least explain how the US's unofficial recognition would drive Arab anger more so than the other countries that did exactly the same thing at roughly the same time...or the countries that officially recognized Israel well before the US did. Thus far, you've done neither.
None of the STRATFOR links posted require a subscription, as I don't have one, either. Most of the historical facts are from other sources, anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
Still can't see it, unless its in the STRATFOR links I can't access as I don't have a sub.FEOS wrote:
Already done. You ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Where have I offered the alternative that "arabs are all irrational and slaves to communist propaganda"? Not once. Yours, on the other hand, assumes that Arabs will scream for American blood (and no others, in spite of others doing even more) for decades for unofficially recognizing Israel, while they will completely ignore other countries' officially recognizing them well before the US does. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. If anyone is implying an irrationality and slavery to propaganda of the Arab people, it is you by saying that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course, the words of the US President are 'unofficial'...No, you need to show that it is relevant, or at least explain how the US's unofficial recognition would drive Arab anger more so than the other countries that did exactly the same thing at roughly the same time...or the countries that officially recognized Israel well before the US did. Thus far, you've done neither.
The US was first, the US was making promises to the arabs at the same time as guaranteeing the Israelis support.
People tend to be more pissed with those who stab them in the back than those who kick them when they're already down.
I've provided a rational and simple explanation, your alternative - that arabs are all irrational and slaves to communist propaganda - is patronising, illogical and ignores significant events, it needs at least a tiny smidgen of evidence to back it up.
Saying 'historical facts! historical facts!' over and over is just duckspeak.
You don't drop them after your done using them, then the US looks like assholes and no one trusts us.Dilbert_X wrote:
Given the cold war is long over and the US still blindly supports Israel the theory must be wrong. They would have dumped the Israelis as fast as they dumped the Afghan Mujahedeen.
If its true then it shows the US has nil strategic nous.
Did that to the Afghans.Commie Killer wrote:
You don't drop them after your done using them, then the US looks like assholes and no one trusts us.Dilbert_X wrote:
Given the cold war is long over and the US still blindly supports Israel the theory must be wrong. They would have dumped the Israelis as fast as they dumped the Afghan Mujahedeen.
If its true then it shows the US has nil strategic nous.
So did the British, point?Dilbert_X wrote:
Did that to the Afghans.Commie Killer wrote:
You don't drop them after your done using them, then the US looks like assholes and no one trusts us.Dilbert_X wrote:
Given the cold war is long over and the US still blindly supports Israel the theory must be wrong. They would have dumped the Israelis as fast as they dumped the Afghan Mujahedeen.
If its true then it shows the US has nil strategic nous.
nope. they did that to themselves.Dilbert_X wrote:
Did that to the Afghans.Commie Killer wrote:
You don't drop them after your done using them, then the US looks like assholes and no one trusts us.Dilbert_X wrote:
Given the cold war is long over and the US still blindly supports Israel the theory must be wrong. They would have dumped the Israelis as fast as they dumped the Afghan Mujahedeen.
If its true then it shows the US has nil strategic nous.
The Afghans decided to stop receiving US money and arms?11 Bravo wrote:
nope. they did that to themselves.
Taliban 1996.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Afghans decided to stop receiving US money and arms?11 Bravo wrote:
nope. they did that to themselves.
Did you miss the part about strategic balance?Dilbert_X wrote:
Given the cold war is long over and the US still blindly supports Israel the theory must be wrong. They would have dumped the Israelis as fast as they dumped the Afghan Mujahedeen.
If its true then it shows the US has nil strategic nous.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 05:32:22)
It was already explained.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see how strategic balance works with supporting the Israelis, it just pisses off the moderate arabs, the extremist arabs, the Iranians - everyone except the Israelis basically.
What 'strategic balance' is there now?
Seems plausible pre 911 but not today ...FEOS wrote:
It was already explained.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see how strategic balance works with supporting the Israelis, it just pisses off the moderate arabs, the extremist arabs, the Iranians - everyone except the Israelis basically.
What 'strategic balance' is there now?
Basically, Israel, as a democracy, is a foil to countries whose policies generally run contrary to US interests in the region. They spend their energy focused on Israel and not on other things to counter US interests.
I'm guessing.
Israel isn't really a democracy.FEOS wrote:
It was already explained.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see how strategic balance works with supporting the Israelis, it just pisses off the moderate arabs, the extremist arabs, the Iranians - everyone except the Israelis basically.
What 'strategic balance' is there now?
Basically, Israel, as a democracy, is a foil to countries whose policies generally run contrary to US interests in the region. They spend their energy focused on Israel and not on other things to counter US interests.
I'm guessing.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Israel isn't really a democracy.FEOS wrote:
It was already explained.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see how strategic balance works with supporting the Israelis, it just pisses off the moderate arabs, the extremist arabs, the Iranians - everyone except the Israelis basically.
What 'strategic balance' is there now?
Basically, Israel, as a democracy, is a foil to countries whose policies generally run contrary to US interests in the region. They spend their energy focused on Israel and not on other things to counter US interests.
I'm guessing.
It appears you are incorrect.wikipedia wrote:
Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic with universal suffrage.
Syria. Iran. Until 2003, Iraq. At times, Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which countries have policies contrary to US interests exactly? They are all selling their oil to the US.
What other interests in the region does the US have?
I don't really think anyone outside Israel or the US would call Israel a 'democracy'its simply an excuse, not a reason.FEOS wrote:
It appears you are incorrect.wikipedia wrote:
Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic with universal suffrage.
Yeah of course US policy has nothing to do with it. Its a total mystery why the US is so often the target.The terrorism we confront today springs from:
• Political alienation. Transnational terrorists are recruited from people who have no
voice in their own government and see no legitimate way to promote change in their
own country. Without a stake in the existing order, they are vulnerable to
manipulation by those who advocate a perverse vision based on violence and
destruction.
• Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and see are
blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant
past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a
potent motivation for revenge and terror.
• Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively
from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods
and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter
out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.
• An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal of
an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents. A proud
religion – the religion of Islam – has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in
other times and places other religions have been similarly abused.
He never said that......and the aggressive statements of (Irans) President calling for Israel to “be
wiped off the face of the earth.”
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-18 04:39:31)
1. I never said it "acts as a shining beacon". But it's more democratic than anywhere else in the ME, by and large.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't really think anyone outside Israel or the US would call Israel a 'democracy'its simply an excuse, not a reason.FEOS wrote:
It appears you are incorrect.wikipedia wrote:
Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic with universal suffrage.
People may well vote, the trick is they disenfranchise and dispossess many people who would otherwise vote.
If you think Israel acts as a shining beacon to the whole of the ME you are very much mistaken.
Re The NSS, you just need to read the first paragraph and see its a joke.
