historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Link to Interview

It is a given that most people haven't heard of the USS Liberty. It's something that is generally glossed over in history classes, if it is taught at all. Or at least it used to be that way.

The official explanation is it was a case of mistaken identity that led to the death of 34 American servicemen in an attack that lasted far longer - and with multiple waves - than a case of mistaken identity would allow for.

Friendly fire happens. Pat Tillman was the most recent well known case of this. The USS Liberty attack was absolutely not a case of friendly fire.

Go watch the video, and remember the casualties on that ship next time someone starts advocating for war in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, or elsewhere.

---

Most people haven't heard of it? It was covered in my rural Indiana high school and again in college.

It remains unclear exactly what happened and why.

But let's say the absolute worst is true. Why should that affect foreign policy 57 years later? We are strong allies with a number of former enemies.

---

When is Israel going to pay back the trillion dollars the American tax payer has given them? We sure could use the money with our historic debt-to-GDP.

Allies pay back their debts.

Enemies do not.

---

Israel just utterly destroyed two Iranian proxies which have killed thousands of Amcits and currently hold several hostage. That campaign also denied the Syrian regime of an ally it depended upon to defend the line of advance into Damascus, causing the fall of the Assad regime, an Iranian ally who has been on the State Sponsor of Terrorism...

---

Sure...100% correct

But don't act like they did it for America

Israel acts to the benefit of Israel only.....

---

Pre-1980 Iran was a very reliable proxy like Israel, too. A Shiite country surrounded by antagonistic Sunni countries, as well as a contiguous border with the USSR. Made them a very motivated ally. That is why Obama and Biden courted them so hard, foolishly hard. They wanted to flip them over to our side. And it was profoundly stupid, as the current regime is ideologically rooted in hatred of the West in general and USA in particular. As we have seen, no amount of inducements moved them an inch toward us and a lot more than that in the wrong direction.

.

---

I can certainly see why having Iran as pro-American ally would be very beneficial (big country, lots of oil, strategic location)

Still not sure what Israel it's us in the region that we already do not have.

But that is an interesting point about Obama-Biden still trying to pull Iran into the American orbit….though that seems like a lost cause given Irans current rulers

---

if you can't see what Israel has done for us in the last 12 months, I can't help you. Biggest bang for the buck, ever.

---

Interesting perspective.

Honestly think it's the other way around.

Without US financial support and military assets in the region……it's highly unlikely the rest of the Muslin world world have sat back while Israel invaded Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

Killing thousands in the process.

---

......in the process killing millions of Jews and empowering Hizballah & Hamas which of course have killed thousands of Americans over the decades and still hold US hostages, leaving a pro-Russian/pro-Iranian regime in place to threaten a Nato ally (Turkey).

How exactly is that preferrable to US interests than what has happened?
-total destruction of Hamas
-near total destruction of Hizballah
-fall of a major terror-sponsor regime in Damascus
-total collapse of decades of Iranian policy aimed at undermining US power around the world
-effective collapse of decades of Palestinian destabilization of the region.

---

Preferable to US intersects is to let Israel fight their own wars and finance their own issues.
which is another way of saying "let the islamic world destroy Israel."
That is a policy option which has not one keystroke of benefit to the USA.
How many Israeli migrants would you be willing to host? All 10m of them?

70 years of US involvement is more than enough.
It's been highly effective, arguably more so dollar for dollar, than any other ally relationship.

Focus on the needs of Americans right here at home.

---

Israel is important to Americans here at home, a strong majority of which support the existence of the Jewish state.

---

They are armed to the teeth and have nuclear weapons

Let's all stop this fantasy that the existence of the Jewish state is somehow under grave threat

(Not to mention their local Arab and Persian enemies are basically incompetent)

---

Even if true, they didn't get there by accident. They needed our (and others) help, they kicked ass, and they never took their eye of the ball.

But I disagree with your premise. They will always be under threat because they are surrounded by whackos who want to destroy them and many of which want to die for their cause.

---

Lets say your right and they will "always be under threat and surrounded by whackos"

Why should the American people and tax payers be endlessly on the hook to protect the Jews there so they can have their own ethno-state surrounded by Arab muslims?

Are we gonna be funding them 100 years into the future? 500 years into the future? 1,000 years?

When did we have a national conversation about how the DC elite were signing us up for supporting one side in a never ending racial/ethnic conflict on the other side of the planet....

---

Because quite literally, it is in our interests to have more stability in the Middle East….

---

True

But not sure giving billions a year to multiple players over there is the best way to achieve that

How do you know that? It is very likely that some of those billions was wasted (we are talking about Washington, after all) but we cannot assume all of it was. It's already been well established that our aid to Israel is a wise investment. The case has also been made for Egypt, although I think it was a mistake to bribe them into joining the Gulf War coalition against Saddam Hussein. That was in their interest & should not have required one penny from the US. The same is true for every other member of that coalition, especially from that region.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

What you call a "bribe" was - 47 years ago -

---

Bribe, foreign aid, any other term you want

At the end of the day the US government pays them tax payer money to influence Egypt

---

So are they bribing us by kicking Russia and China out of bed, providing us intel, allowing us to use the canal, trading with us, and lobbying on our behalf to other ME/Africa countries?

---

You are making arguments for why the bribes are good for US foreign policy

Not an argument that we are somehow not bribing the Egyptian government

(with peace for Israel being one of those key reasons since 1979)

---

No, I'm not. I don't consider international relations to be bribery. When effective, it's mutually beneficial deal-making. And that's not semantical. Is it your position that al deals, treaties, arrangements, partnerships, etc. are bribes?

---

Lets not make the dishonest augment that treaties, trade deals, and political relationships....are the same as handing over $2 billion a year in American tax payer dollars.

You can have all 3 of the others without giving over pallets of cash

Does the US give the United Kingdom $2 billion a year to continue its mutually beneficial deals and maintain its treaties and partnerships?

---

The vast majority of aid to Egypt and Israel are through the Foreign Military Financing program, which means most of the aid comes back to the US via defense contracts and contractors. The UK purchases a good amount of U.S. military equipment through private direct sales, although not as much since they have a sizable domestic defense industry.

I mean if you combined the annual non defense related aid for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey (our most significant allies in the region) maybe it's a Billion dollars. But this argument isn't about the money, it's the party involved that burns you up.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

What you call a "bribe" was - 47 years ago -

---

Bribe, foreign aid, any other term you want

At the end of the day the US government pays them tax payer money to influence Egypt

---

So are they bribing us by kicking Russia and China out of bed, providing us intel, allowing us to use the canal, trading with us, and lobbying on our behalf to other ME/Africa countries?

---

your comments to Red reminded of the old adage: "....I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you......"

So many layers to the cake. Israel and Egypt and Suez are not important to us at all. Nope. D

---

Of course they are

Sombear was incorrectly under the impression that we don't pay Egypt to be at peace with Israel (we have since the 70s)

When of course we do....and no historian or middle east expert denies that fact

Our many faceted relationship with Egypt and the other reasons for it are a different argument/discussion...Suez being of course another major reason...Egypt being the biggest population state in the middle east being another.

---

sombear is absolutely correct on this. The aid was the decisive inducement to getting Egypt to sign the Camp David accords; but Egypt-Israel peace is no longer the primary reason for the aid. There are a long list of reasons for it, one of which you alluded to - Egypt's population. Egypt is a major power in the region (along with Saudi, Turkey, and Iran.) We have manageably good relationships with three of those powers, which isolates the fourth (Iran). As a result, trade flows for everyone, benefitting us directly or indirectly in a variety of ways. and, of course, we don't; have to directly attack Iran. We have a range of options to keep them in their cubby hole, to include an Israel fighting largely with the same front-line weaponry our soldiers would have to use. We get to see how our stuff works in battle, without risking any of our blood to do so. We also get to see how Iran responds (i.e. what their capabilities are.)

I know, I know that sounds awfully cold & predatory. But when WWII broke out in the Pacific, our torpedoes didn't explode when they hit Japanese ships. Had to fix that in real time. Lost time, money, and lives as a result. Scout's Motto applies here. It's always good to know your knives will cut the things they're supposed to cut before the knife fight starts.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

if you can't see what Israel has done for us in the last 12 months, I can't help you. Biggest bang for the buck, ever.

---

Interesting perspective.

Honestly think it's the other way around.

Without US financial support and military assets in the region……it's highly unlikely the rest of the Muslin world world have sat back while Israel invaded Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

Killing thousands in the process.

---

......in the process killing millions of Jews and empowering Hizballah & Hamas which of course have killed thousands of Americans over the decades and still hold US hostages, leaving a pro-Russian/pro-Iranian regime in place to threaten a Nato ally (Turkey).

How exactly is that preferrable to US interests than what has happened?
-total destruction of Hamas
-near total destruction of Hizballah
-fall of a major terror-sponsor regime in Damascus
-total collapse of decades of Iranian policy aimed at undermining US power around the world
-effective collapse of decades of Palestinian destabilization of the region.

---

Preferable to US intersects is to let Israel fight their own wars and finance their own issues.
which is another way of saying "let the islamic world destroy Israel."
That is a policy option which has not one keystroke of benefit to the USA.
How many Israeli migrants would you be willing to host? All 10m of them?

70 years of US involvement is more than enough.
It's been highly effective, arguably more so dollar for dollar, than any other ally relationship.

Focus on the needs of Americans right here at home.

---

Israel is important to Americans here at home, a strong majority of which support the existence of the Jewish state.

---

They are armed to the teeth and have nuclear weapons

Let's all stop this fantasy that the existence of the Jewish state is somehow under grave threat

(Not to mention their local Arab and Persian enemies are basically incompetent)

---

Even if true, they didn't get there by accident. They needed our (and others) help, they kicked ass, and they never took their eye of the ball.

But I disagree with your premise. They will always be under threat because they are surrounded by whackos who want to destroy them and many of which want to die for their cause.

---

Lets say your right and they will "always be under threat and surrounded by whackos"

Why should the American people and tax payers be endlessly on the hook to protect the Jews there so they can have their own ethno-state surrounded by Arab muslims?

Are we gonna be funding them 100 years into the future? 500 years into the future? 1,000 years?

When did we have a national conversation about how the DC elite were signing us up for supporting one side in a never ending racial/ethnic conflict on the other side of the planet....

---

Because quite literally, it is in our interests to have more stability in the Middle East….

---

True

But not sure giving billions a year to multiple players over there is the best way to achieve that

---

ok. HOW? What is a better way to achieve that?

"So sorry we've been oppressing you with all this aid. How about we show you some real respect and not give you any more? I know that will make you like us a lot better and be more responsive to our interests."

FACT: The aid is how you influence behavior. You literally give the aid so you can have the leverage of threatening to withdraw it.

FACT: the aid recipient has the implicit threat of going to a higher bidder if you do not pony up.

It has been that way as far back in recorded time as it is possible to go.