Why Don't You Support Israel? (Florida, Army, town, market)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Golda Meier blackmailed the US by threatening the use of nuclear weapons.
Nixon capitulated, in part because the murderer Kissassinger forced him.
Nixon gave Israel what Meier wanted, which was the satellite and aerial recon photos, plus money, plus weapons and munitions.
That's the only reason Israel won. Without the satellite photos, they'd been over-run.
I was curious about this regarding nuclear weapons I hadn't really heard about before. Why I don't know, but whenever there is a bit of information or history like this, especially if sometimes hard to believe, I take a moment to check it out (since as usual, no reference link was provided). I also noticed no comments in response to this one above, so far anyway, but I did find this with my search...
"Israel, recognizing that it had been caught off-guard, also recognized that it did not have the manufacturing capacity to keep up the continued fighting and push back against the invading Arab forces. This greatly worried Israeli leaders, since the "greatest airlift in [Soviet] history" was declared by an Egyptian general to be starting on October 10. In response, the US considered resupplying Israel.
Israel, however, had a way to entice the US, or so the thinking goes on the next part of the story. Secretary Kissinger writes that Israel wanted to use "hysteria or blackmail" to convince the US to resupply it, and one way to do that was by threatening to use nuclear weapons if conventional ones ran out, at which point Israeli leaders would've felt that all was lost. The US resupply actually dwarfed the Soviet one, and was actually ordered shortly after the Soviet one, on October 9."
Every war we have ever won has been with the help of allies. How do you know our country would exist today without them? Does that nullify our “right of force”?
You must be kidding. The only true war when US was attacked and fought for its very existence was Independence war, and I don't recall any allies there. All other wars were held outside of US, never presented any danger to US existence, and US was the initiator (yes, even in WWII with Japan - it was US that imposed sanctions and then embargo first, which, by itself, is already a war, although not spelled out explicitly - but still a war). No allies were ever needed. For wars after WWII the only reason to have "allies" was an attempt to look nice and pretend that it's not outright US aggression, but rather some "international effort". That's pure "right of force".
On a broader scope, sometimes country might need allies to survive. But if country always needs "allies" to survive - it means that it's just unsustainable on its own.
I thought you were trying to argue that the US, granted the natives reservations where they can follow their own laws and customs. Why? What were you trying to say?
I believe Israel tried to do the right thing, several times, and the Palestinians spit in their faces for it, every time. I hear a lot of jumbo jumbo about Israel not wanting peace, but it only makes sense if you revise history first.
I believe that the Palestinians will accept nothing less than the whole country of Israel.
Until the Palestinians give up on their dream and goal of the destruction of Israel, the peace process can never move further. It has to start there, because that is what has been keeping them from accepting their own country for all these years.
So no. I don’t recognize ANY wrong doing, because the Palestinians have brought all this on themselves. If they wanted their own country, they could have had it 70 years ago.
I am really not sure how to reconcile an opinion like yours with all who could not come close to a simple "no" answer or your reason for one. My first thought, however, is to perhaps use the American Indian analogy, because in many ways it correlates.
Would you also answer in the same way with regard to the United States and the American Indians?
Obviously, the United States in similar fashion tried to "make good" with the American Indians, but can those efforts really be justification for a "no" answer entirely? Though concessions were eventually made on the part of the United States on behalf of the American Indians, is there really anything that American Indians would agree was a satisfactory resolution all considered?
More to the question, can anyone say there is nothing in the way of wrong-doing on the part of the United States with regard to this part of American history? Simply because the U.S. "tried to do the right thing?"
You must be kidding. The only true war when US was attacked and fought for its very existence was Independence war, and I don't recall any allies there. All other wars were held outside of US, never presented any danger to US existence, and US was the initiator (yes, even in WWII with Japan - it was US that imposed sanctions and then embargo first, which, by itself, is already a war, although not spelled out explicitly - but still a war). No allies were ever needed. And since WWII the only reason to have "allies" was an attempt to look nice and pretend that it's not outright US aggression, but rather some "international effort". That's pure "right of force".
On a broader scope, sometimes country might need allies to survive. But if country always needs "allies" to survive - it means that it's just unsustainable on its own.
I’m at a loss. There is so much wrong here, I don’t know what to say, or where to even begin.
Did they replace history classes with conspiracy theory classes or something?
I thought you were trying to argue that the US, granted the natives reservations where they can follow their own laws and customs. Why? What were you trying to say?
You wrote, "This argument never works for me. Israel already has the land, just like we already have this land. Seeing as how you don’t support giving North America back to the natives, why would you support Israel giving the land back to the Palestinians?"
Seemed as if you were not in agreement with the argument for the American Indian reservations.
Either you are or you are not, and if you are, then so too one can justify why Israel should make similar concessions to the Palestinians. Right?
If yes, then the discussion can be more about what those concessions should rightfully be. Since it seems we are all in agreement the answer is yes, so too we can spend better time addressing what those concessions should be.
If no, well it seemed you were arguing no, so I'm trying to clarify. Correct me if I am wrong...
You must be kidding. The only true war when US was attacked and fought for its very existence was Independence war, and I don't recall any allies there.
[snip]
The Revolutionary War was fought many years ago, so I understand why you don't recall that France, Spain, and others helped the colonists gain Independence. Some believe we'd have lost without their help, France's in particular. Invest in a U.S. history book ?
I am really not sure how to reconcile an opinion like yours with all who could not come close to a simple "no" answer or your reason for one. My first thought, however, is to perhaps use the American Indian analogy, because in many ways it correlates.
Would you also answer in the same way with regard to the United States and the American Indians?
Obviously, the United States in similar fashion tried to "make good" with the American Indians, but can those efforts really be justification for a "no" answer entirely? Though concessions were eventually made on the part of the United States on behalf of the American Indians, is there really anything that American Indians would agree was a satisfactory resolution all considered?
More to the question, can anyone say there is nothing in the way of wrong-doing on the part of the United States with regard to this part of American history? Simply because the U.S. "tried to do the right thing?"
No matter how many times? Honestly?
What was “wrong and right” when it came to land acquisitions throughout history? The world was a barbaric place. Much of it still is. Conquering lands has been going on since we have been walking upright. A very short while ago, if a group like the Palestinians attacked another group, like the Israelis, the Israelis would have killed them all, and it would be considered a great victory. So this is progress.
Until very recently, nobody gave a crap about the Indians or their plight either. And now that they do, we try to do things to help them, but we have no plans to leave and give them the country back. And since they have not been lobbing missiles into nearby neighborhoods, or blowing up school busses or market places, they have the freedom to leave their reservations and move freely about the rest of USA.
Again, if the Palestinians would just give up their goal of the destruction of Israel, it would go a long way to getting the peace process rolling and getting them their own state.
The Revolutionary War was fought many years ago, so I understand why you don't recall that France, Spain, and others helped the colonists gain Independence. Some believe we'd have lost without their help, France's in particular. Invest in a U.S. history book ?
This was similar to the answer I was going to post, but then I went on to read the rest of his post, and I figured, “Why bother?”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
