You should change your UserID to "Dunning-Kruger-BEAR."The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The arguments of Israel opponents have a massive faulty assumption - that the USA derives no policy benefits from our support for Israel, and/or would be better off without Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:There are few foreign policy arguments weaker than the idea that we are wasting money on Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:You will note that I typically refrain from doing that, but I will admit it takes quite a bit of restraint to do so since the arguments against our policy toward Israel are so insanely out of touch with national security realities that anti-semitism is the most obvious explanation.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Oh calm down. Israel is not wantonly attacking anyone. Israel is killing Hizballah and Hamas leadership. Collateral damage will happen. Israel goes to some lengths to minimize it.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Of all the bad things I worry might happen to my family, slaughter at the hands of Jews is simply not on the list.The_barBEARian said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
Don't recall Hizballah slaughtering Christian Lebanese, but it's very possible they have, and our media didn't report it.
Whiterock is a Jew-slave liar.
Israel could murder his entire gentile family and he be wishing them happy Hanukkah two months from now.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese Christians were/are actually passive allies because their interests align.
It is the Sunni Lebanese factions that are killing all the Christians in Lebanon.
I see Jews/Israeli as natural allies, in a number of areas. Not all of them agree with me. That's ok.
Same cannot be said of Arab Christians. Not a lot of warm fuzzies there toward Jews.
Lebanon is a 4-way balancing act - Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, with even more significant outside players - Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, etc.....
Without Iranian support, the Shia would go back to being the hillbillies of Lebanon.
Christians and Alawites form a coalition govt in Syria, because they are each minorities in a sea of mostly (75%) Sunnis. That has not exactly translated to Lebanon at all. The Syrian regime in fact is allied with Iran and facilitates support for Hizballah in Lebanon (not Christians or Druze, each of which would have a closer tie to the Assad regime were it all about faith).
faith matters and motivates. But the end of the day, Lebanon is a very messy place that defies easy alignments. most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, it is a failed state which hosts a terrorist army that has killed thousands of Americans, and many more others. Israel is under no obligation to endure daily waves of rocketry from southern Lebanon just to keep from pissing you off.
You should thank Israel for sacrificing their young men and women to destroy Hamas and Hizballah on our behalf. Their efforts actually do make all of us safer.
Informative post.
However I don't agree that Israeli killings of Christian Lebanese and various Muslims makes US citizens safer. In fact just the opposite.
The existence of Israel and the incredible amount of influence their money purchases within our government has resulted
in the placement of thousands of US sailors and ground troops in the region. Where they are killed, and in return kill their antagonists. All to protect Israel and ( on a side note ) oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. None of which protects US citizens.
No other country provides such military assistance to Israel.
It remains an unjustifiable habit, purchased by Israeli lobbyists over the last 60 years.
Time for a new policy.
Israel is doing what should have been done decades ago....systematically destroying Iranian allied terrorist groups. We need to send them the arms & ammo to get on with it. It makes us safer.
You should read up on Hizballah. They've killed an awful lot of Americans. So has Hamas.......
Strange rebuttal.
As I am certainly calm.
Our government must refrain from being bought like sheep by Israeli lobbyists and sending our servicemen in harms way protecting Israel.
We don't need lobbyists to persuade us to arm Israel to kill Hamas and Hizballah.
We have had this money for protection relationship since the 50's and it's past time to get US servicemen out of the region.
We have a token number of US servicemen in the region, doing work that needs doing - killing terrorists.
No other country has burdened its self with sacrificing its servicemen and billions of dollars protecting Israel.
LOL we are not sacrificing our soldier to protect Israel ISRAEL is sacrificing its own soldiers for its own national security, and we get a direct benefit from that, as Israel's enemies in the region are also ours.
And it's not remotely antisemitic to question the continuation of such policies for almost 60 years.
We get more bang for the buck out of our aid to Israel than anywhere else in the world.
The whole point is there is zero need for billions of US bucks in the Middle East if we allow Israel to fight their own wars.
You have it exactly backwards. Israel cannot fight its own wars without our support. it's 12m people nestled in the middle of billions of people who detest Jews for who they are. That makes Israel an incredibly loyal ally. They have destroyed one Iranian proxy army (Hamas) and are now setting about destroying another (Hizballah). That will curtail Iranian influence throughout the region. And we won't have to shed a drop of blood to do it. The Israelis will do all the work for us. Win/Win.
No other country on earth spends the lives or money for Israel like does the United States.
Because no other nation is as large or has as broad an array of interests as we do.
It's time for the US to adopt the same attitude as the rest of the world.
Plumb goofy. We are not Switzerland or Chile or Sri Lanka.
The US tax payer has been footing the bill of aid for Israel for almost SIXTY years.
yes
A ridiculous amount of time for any country to receive so much money.
unless there is a substantial return on investment, which there is (although reasonable people can quibble about matters of degree).
And it's only maintained because Israeli lobbyists have established long term ' relationships ' with key members of our government.
There's where you left the rails. Our policy toward Israel has little to do with lobbying and everything to do with national interest fortified by domestic policy considerations. We are much better off WITH the existence of Israel than without, and the Jewish vote is not unimportant to either party.
No other country in the world plays the fool in such a manner regarding Israel.
Most of the world benefits from our support for Israel, including quite a few islamic countries.
If Israel can't support their own wars after almost 60 years of US aid; that is their responsibility; not ours.
What war does Israel fight that is not wholly are partly also our wars?
This is certainly one of the stupidest posts I have read in awhile.
I hear you talking, but you aren't saying anything.
You make some astounding claims that the US is benefiting but provide no evidence.
I have provided quite a few, actually. It's you who are making the sweeping assumptions there is no benefit.
It is more accurate that a very select few may have financially benefited from Israel's kleptoparasitic relationship with the US while the great majority had their tax dollars stolen.
You mean like all the US defense contractors with hundreds of thousands of employees who sell billions of dollars of military hardware to Israel? Those things are actually used in combat, allowing us to beta test our stuff in real time without having to actually go to war to do so. There are millions of Jewish Amcits who have family in Israel and travel there; hundreds of thousands of dual citizens, and/or Israelis with claims on US citizenship (US persons). There are millions of American Christians who visit Israel to see the holy sites. Wife and daughter had a trip scheduled (via Baylor) but had to cancel last year after the Hamas attacks. Long/short of it is, there are substantial cultural, economic, and national security benefits from our relationship with Israel.
Americans are getting poorer and poorer and people are done with foreigners receiving more benefits from their own tax dollars than they receive themselves!
In an earlier day, leftists made that point about military spending everywhere. The problem with it is - it's a false dilemma. It's not "guns or butter." We are a nation which can afford to make BOTH guns and butter. Doing poorly at one does not mean you doing the other is unnecessary.
Everything Kaibear said is the truth and if you and the three other posters who liked your post refuse to even debate honestly then we need another civil war in this country... it can be the supporters of America being a vassal state for Israel side vs everyone else.
I have laid out a long list of benefits. Specifics. Many times. Yet here you are, making wild-assed nonsensical claims, like America being a "vassal state" of Israel, solely because you have a 1st grade understanding of national security policy issues.
Our $35 trillion historic debt-to-GDP says otherwise about America being a nation that can fight Israel's wars while also remaining prosperous at home.
We can easily afford to do that, because it is a pin***** in the deficit.
I have always said if Jews and Christians who feel Jews are the chosen people and a master race want to donate money to Israel out of their personal 401k's I have absolutely no problem with that.
Its when you start forcing the rest of us to fund this foreign nation, it becomes a big problem.
It's an even bigger problem if we don't.
My national security policy is a lot like Israel's - defend our own borders and don't donate money to other countries to defend their borders.
Israel has quite robust security relationships around the world. (because it's wise to do so....those who can, do).
Netanyahu said "we are at war,"
400,150 Views |
6389 Replies |
Last: 9 hrs ago by ATL Bear
whiterock said:cultural ties matter. When we talk about "western civilization" we are really talking about Judeo-Christian culture far more than Greek civilization which gets so much attention. So it's not like Israel is some nation in the arm pit of the world with which we have nothing in common (say, Tajikistan.) Israel is an outpost of the western world wedged into the islamic world. And that's before we get to its proximity to areas so important to world trade (our trade and trade of allies) like the Persian Gulf, the Suez Canal, the eastern Med, etc......and how Israel is a godsend in our efforts to defend ourselves against so many terror threats that have killed thousands of Americans.Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
I mean, one really has to work hard to craft a nonsensical proposition that Israel matters not to us.
Christianity is far superior to Judaism to the point it is insulting to lump them together.
Judaism is an inherently racist religion built on a foundation of racial superiority.
Christianity is inherently an accepting religion build on a foundation of grace and forgiveness.
whiterock said:You should change your UserID to "Dunning-Kruger-BEAR."The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The arguments of Israel opponents have a massive faulty assumption - that the USA derives no policy benefits from our support for Israel, and/or would be better off without Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:There are few foreign policy arguments weaker than the idea that we are wasting money on Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:You will note that I typically refrain from doing that, but I will admit it takes quite a bit of restraint to do so since the arguments against our policy toward Israel are so insanely out of touch with national security realities that anti-semitism is the most obvious explanation.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Oh calm down. Israel is not wantonly attacking anyone. Israel is killing Hizballah and Hamas leadership. Collateral damage will happen. Israel goes to some lengths to minimize it.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Of all the bad things I worry might happen to my family, slaughter at the hands of Jews is simply not on the list.The_barBEARian said:KaiBear said:whiterock said:You obviously have never heard of an Iranian proxy group named "Hizballah." They've been doing that & more for decades.KaiBear said:
Israel is out of control.
If Iran was bombing the **** out of Christian communities in Lebanon our government would be having a total meltdown.
Don't recall Hizballah slaughtering Christian Lebanese, but it's very possible they have, and our media didn't report it.
Whiterock is a Jew-slave liar.
Israel could murder his entire gentile family and he be wishing them happy Hanukkah two months from now.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese Christians were/are actually passive allies because their interests align.
It is the Sunni Lebanese factions that are killing all the Christians in Lebanon.
I see Jews/Israeli as natural allies, in a number of areas. Not all of them agree with me. That's ok.
Same cannot be said of Arab Christians. Not a lot of warm fuzzies there toward Jews.
Lebanon is a 4-way balancing act - Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, with even more significant outside players - Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, etc.....
Without Iranian support, the Shia would go back to being the hillbillies of Lebanon.
Christians and Alawites form a coalition govt in Syria, because they are each minorities in a sea of mostly (75%) Sunnis. That has not exactly translated to Lebanon at all. The Syrian regime in fact is allied with Iran and facilitates support for Hizballah in Lebanon (not Christians or Druze, each of which would have a closer tie to the Assad regime were it all about faith).
faith matters and motivates. But the end of the day, Lebanon is a very messy place that defies easy alignments. most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, it is a failed state which hosts a terrorist army that has killed thousands of Americans, and many more others. Israel is under no obligation to endure daily waves of rocketry from southern Lebanon just to keep from pissing you off.
You should thank Israel for sacrificing their young men and women to destroy Hamas and Hizballah on our behalf. Their efforts actually do make all of us safer.
Informative post.
However I don't agree that Israeli killings of Christian Lebanese and various Muslims makes US citizens safer. In fact just the opposite.
The existence of Israel and the incredible amount of influence their money purchases within our government has resulted
in the placement of thousands of US sailors and ground troops in the region. Where they are killed, and in return kill their antagonists. All to protect Israel and ( on a side note ) oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. None of which protects US citizens.
No other country provides such military assistance to Israel.
It remains an unjustifiable habit, purchased by Israeli lobbyists over the last 60 years.
Time for a new policy.
Israel is doing what should have been done decades ago....systematically destroying Iranian allied terrorist groups. We need to send them the arms & ammo to get on with it. It makes us safer.
You should read up on Hizballah. They've killed an awful lot of Americans. So has Hamas.......
Strange rebuttal.
As I am certainly calm.
Our government must refrain from being bought like sheep by Israeli lobbyists and sending our servicemen in harms way protecting Israel.
We don't need lobbyists to persuade us to arm Israel to kill Hamas and Hizballah.
We have had this money for protection relationship since the 50's and it's past time to get US servicemen out of the region.
We have a token number of US servicemen in the region, doing work that needs doing - killing terrorists.
No other country has burdened its self with sacrificing its servicemen and billions of dollars protecting Israel.
LOL we are not sacrificing our soldier to protect Israel ISRAEL is sacrificing its own soldiers for its own national security, and we get a direct benefit from that, as Israel's enemies in the region are also ours.
And it's not remotely antisemitic to question the continuation of such policies for almost 60 years.
We get more bang for the buck out of our aid to Israel than anywhere else in the world.
The whole point is there is zero need for billions of US bucks in the Middle East if we allow Israel to fight their own wars.
You have it exactly backwards. Israel cannot fight its own wars without our support. it's 12m people nestled in the middle of billions of people who detest Jews for who they are. That makes Israel an incredibly loyal ally. They have destroyed one Iranian proxy army (Hamas) and are now setting about destroying another (Hizballah). That will curtail Iranian influence throughout the region. And we won't have to shed a drop of blood to do it. The Israelis will do all the work for us. Win/Win.
No other country on earth spends the lives or money for Israel like does the United States.
Because no other nation is as large or has as broad an array of interests as we do.
It's time for the US to adopt the same attitude as the rest of the world.
Plumb goofy. We are not Switzerland or Chile or Sri Lanka.
The US tax payer has been footing the bill of aid for Israel for almost SIXTY years.
yes
A ridiculous amount of time for any country to receive so much money.
unless there is a substantial return on investment, which there is (although reasonable people can quibble about matters of degree).
And it's only maintained because Israeli lobbyists have established long term ' relationships ' with key members of our government.
There's where you left the rails. Our policy toward Israel has little to do with lobbying and everything to do with national interest fortified by domestic policy considerations. We are much better off WITH the existence of Israel than without, and the Jewish vote is not unimportant to either party.
No other country in the world plays the fool in such a manner regarding Israel.
Most of the world benefits from our support for Israel, including quite a few islamic countries.
If Israel can't support their own wars after almost 60 years of US aid; that is their responsibility; not ours.
What war does Israel fight that is not wholly are partly also our wars?
This is certainly one of the stupidest posts I have read in awhile.
I hear you talking, but you aren't saying anything.
You make some astounding claims that the US is benefiting but provide no evidence.
I have provided quite a few, actually. It's you who are making the sweeping assumptions there is no benefit.
It is more accurate that a very select few may have financially benefited from Israel's kleptoparasitic relationship with the US while the great majority had their tax dollars stolen.
You mean like all the US defense contractors with hundreds of thousands of employees who sell billions of dollars of military hardware to Israel? Those things are actually used in combat, allowing us to beta test our stuff in real time without having to actually go to war to do so. There are millions of Jewish Amcits who have family in Israel and travel there; hundreds of thousands of dual citizens, and/or Israelis with claims on US citizenship (US persons). There are millions of American Christians who visit Israel to see the holy sites. Wife and daughter had a trip scheduled (via Baylor) but had to cancel last year after the Hamas attacks. Long/short of it is, there are substantial cultural, economic, and national security benefits from our relationship with Israel.
Americans are getting poorer and poorer and people are done with foreigners receiving more benefits from their own tax dollars than they receive themselves!
In an earlier day, leftists made that point about military spending everywhere. The problem with it is - it's a false dilemma. It's not "guns or butter." We are a nation which can afford to make BOTH guns and butter. Doing poorly at one does not mean you doing the other is unnecessary.
Everything Kaibear said is the truth and if you and the three other posters who liked your post refuse to even debate honestly then we need another civil war in this country... it can be the supporters of America being a vassal state for Israel side vs everyone else.
I have laid out a long list of benefits. Specifics. Many times. Yet here you are, making wild-assed nonsensical claims, like America being a "vassal state" of Israel, solely because you have a 1st grade understanding of national security policy issues.
Our $35 trillion historic debt-to-GDP says otherwise about America being a nation that can fight Israel's wars while also remaining prosperous at home.
We can easily afford to do that, because it is a pin***** in the deficit.
I have always said if Jews and Christians who feel Jews are the chosen people and a master race want to donate money to Israel out of their personal 401k's I have absolutely no problem with that.
Its when you start forcing the rest of us to fund this foreign nation, it becomes a big problem.
It's an even bigger problem if we don't.
My national security policy is a lot like Israel's - defend our own borders and don't donate money to other countries to defend their borders.
Israel has quite robust security relationships around the world. (because it's wise to do so....those who can, do).
If an estimated defense budget $600 billion (and growing) per annum is a drop in the bucket to you then you are not a rational person.
I emphasis *estimated* because they are spending so much money they cant even track where it all goes.
OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
I don't follow you reasoning
Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
Again, you act like that was a bad thing
The USA had no legal reason and no electoral mandate to preemptively get involved with World War II
After Pearl Harbor (and the later German declaration of war) the USA had a mandate to fight that war to total victory....knowing we had the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.
You think the USA should have attacked Japan and Germany for no reason?
No, but thanks to the isolationists, primarily in the US Senate we were unprepared when the Axis struck.
Isolationists,led by Lindberger actually wore swastikas and established Bunds to support Germany (until December, 41
whiterock said:
LOL you might want to do some googling on "realpolitik" before you use it again.
"Realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean "real" in the English sense but rather connotes "things"hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest."
What I'm advocating could go next to that definition as an example. That is to say, whatever your feelings are for the Israelis, Ukrainians, and Taiwanese we had best (1) defund Israel and get them to handle their own affairs, (2) throw Ukraine under the bus, end backfiring sanctions, and start importing Russian oil and gas, and (3) negotiate a Hong Kong like exit for Taiwan. We simply cannot afford any other solution given the current state of the nation.
Osodecentx said:Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
Again, you act like that was a bad thing
The USA had no legal reason and no electoral mandate to preemptively get involved with World War II
After Pearl Harbor (and the later German declaration of war) the USA had a mandate to fight that war to total victory....knowing we had the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.
You think the USA should have attacked Japan and Germany for no reason?
No, but thanks to the isolationists, primarily in the US Senate we were unprepared when the Axis struck.
Isolationists,led by Lindberger actually wore swastikas and established Bunds to support Germany (until December, 41
Sounds a lot like the members of congress wearing IDF military uniforms in Congress today
Osodecentx said:Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
Again, you act like that was a bad thing
The USA had no legal reason and no electoral mandate to preemptively get involved with World War II
After Pearl Harbor (and the later German declaration of war) the USA had a mandate to fight that war to total victory....knowing we had the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.
You think the USA should have attacked Japan and Germany for no reason?
Lindberger actually wore swastikas and established Bunds to support Germany (until December, 41
Well until Dec of '41 Germany was not an enemy of the American people.
And of course millions of Americans were of German descent (especially in the Midwest)
I don't know where you came up with the ideas above either. Or rather I do, but it's a toilet bowl of an origin.Sam Lowry said:If you ram it into a tour boat full of innocent people, don't expect another one.ATL Bear said:You willingly sold me a boat. Now you want to tell me where and how I can drive it.Sam Lowry said:You should buy me a new boat, then. Otherwise I don't appreciate you dictating how I spend my money.ATL Bear said:Spin it however you want, it still proves my original point.Sam Lowry said:I don't want to support certain things. That's not dictating.ATL Bear said:You want to dictate how they handle their problems.Sam Lowry said:Not if your point is that Israel is handling its own problems. Did I miss something?ATL Bear said:That only further proves the point.Sam Lowry said:With our weapons...so not really.ATL Bear said:
If this war proves anything, everyone talks about letting Israel handle its own problems until Israel starts handling its own problems.
Israel handling its own problems means Israel handling its own problems -- i.e. without us. It doesn't mean continuing to enable war crimes year after year and generation after generation. I don't know where you came up with that idea.
So you're saying we should do more? Interesting change in your opinion.Sam Lowry said:Not to the Ukrainians.ATL Bear said:This is absolute tripe.Sam Lowry said:Supposedly. Yet as too many have learned, while American bullying may be dangerous, our protection is often fatal.ATL Bear said:One man's bully is another man's protector apparently.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, it's the world that's isolating itself from us, with the "sole purpose" of undermining our economy. It's got nothing to do with our bullying or our hypocrisy.ATL Bear said:Or maybe they're trying to isolate themselves so they can act with impunity.Sam Lowry said:No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.ATL Bear said:There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".Sam Lowry said:So when you argued that BRICS was irrelevant, what you really meant was that it's the biggest economic threat to the US in our lifetime.ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket. But keep justifying and cheerleading for something like BRICs which its primary effort is to undermine the dollar and U.S. economic power, which if successful could remove our currency supremacy, and you'd feel it like nothing you've ever felt economically before.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said:BRICS has a higher combined population and GDP than the G7. In a few short years it will have its own payment system. Even if you ignore the oil-producing countries of the Middle East (which is frankly odd), we're going to great lengths to antagonize China and Russia (which are both relevant, despite the juvenile trash talk from US officials).ATL Bear said:You have cornerstone BRICS members wanting out of BRICS. The addition of Turkey would only drive India further away from it. China and India are the only 2 relevant economies in that fledgling alliance, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are much more pro West unlike Russia and Iran.Sam Lowry said:NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
It's not just that Turkey is unhappy with an issue here and there, either, like EU rejection or the genocide in Gaza. NATO policy wonks are actively floating ideas to curtail their influence within the alliance and ultimately drive them out. And contrary to Western propaganda, fear of "expansionist" Russia isn't the overwhelming motivator in East European and West Asian countries that we're led to believe.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Interesting example of denialism at work there.
Maybe it feels better to look at it that way, but the end result is the same. You want to police the world, you can expect pushback.
ATL Bear said:So you're saying we should do more? Interesting change in your opinion.Sam Lowry said:Not to the Ukrainians.ATL Bear said:This is absolute tripe.Sam Lowry said:Supposedly. Yet as too many have learned, while American bullying may be dangerous, our protection is often fatal.ATL Bear said:One man's bully is another man's protector apparently.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, it's the world that's isolating itself from us, with the "sole purpose" of undermining our economy. It's got nothing to do with our bullying or our hypocrisy.ATL Bear said:Or maybe they're trying to isolate themselves so they can act with impunity.Sam Lowry said:No one is cheering. I'm the one who's been warning about it the whole time. Our policies couldn't be better calculated to isolate us if we wanted them to.ATL Bear said:There are much bigger threats to dollar supremacy than BRICs. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of you guys cheering on something that would aid in that outcome. I think the appropriate phrase is to "cut off your nose to spite your face".Sam Lowry said:So when you argued that BRICS was irrelevant, what you really meant was that it's the biggest economic threat to the US in our lifetime.ATL Bear said:Russia has threatened my family and taken money out of my pocket. But keep justifying and cheerleading for something like BRICs which its primary effort is to undermine the dollar and U.S. economic power, which if successful could remove our currency supremacy, and you'd feel it like nothing you've ever felt economically before.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:India and China are in essence enemies with active border disputes and recent clashes. Every single other member has problematic economies and Turkey would only add to that.Sam Lowry said:BRICS has a higher combined population and GDP than the G7. In a few short years it will have its own payment system. Even if you ignore the oil-producing countries of the Middle East (which is frankly odd), we're going to great lengths to antagonize China and Russia (which are both relevant, despite the juvenile trash talk from US officials).ATL Bear said:You have cornerstone BRICS members wanting out of BRICS. The addition of Turkey would only drive India further away from it. China and India are the only 2 relevant economies in that fledgling alliance, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are much more pro West unlike Russia and Iran.Sam Lowry said:NATO's value to Turkey is rapidly diminishing. Turkey has been snubbed by the EU for decades and is now seeking membership in BRICS. They stand to benefit enormously from China's Belt and Road project. They certainly have no intention of sending their troops as cannon fodder for a Western war against Russia. I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave the alliance eventually. They'll take Europe's largest army with them when they go, rendering NATO permanently irrelevant.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, policy critics argue to the mat that Russia has no territorial ambitions, that Russian expansionism is a figment of Nato imagination to justify Nato imperial expansionsim. Then, in order to impeach the wisdom of including Turkey as a member of Nato,Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Stating historical facts is not an attack.
Russia wants to have secure borders...and looks for "anchor" points...like oceans and mountain ranges to have natural borders.
There is nothing inherently "aggressive" about the Russian character.
The USA also seeks "anchor" points on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...and we secured those.
Now the Turks were more "aggressive" for the sake of being aggressive...and engaging in Islamic conquest
Russian geography explains most of its historic moves....
1. No one doubts the wisdom of bringing Turkey into NATO during the cold war...it was the right call
(deny USSR total control of the Black sea, hold Bosphorus strait choke point, have missiles closer to Moscow)
People just complain about the Turks today....increasingly islamist, neo-Ottoman aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, always getting into fights with the EU leadership, etc.
2. Russian territorial ambitions have been well known.....they want to secure their sphere of influence and protect themselves from possible invasion....they have wanted to do that for centuries.
That means keeping countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia on team Moscow.
Its D.C. elites who have to explain why they are so territorial ambitious that they want to risk proxy wars to pull those 4 countries out of the Russian sphere of influence...and expand NATO all the way to the Russian border.
It's not just that Turkey is unhappy with an issue here and there, either, like EU rejection or the genocide in Gaza. NATO policy wonks are actively floating ideas to curtail their influence within the alliance and ultimately drive them out. And contrary to Western propaganda, fear of "expansionist" Russia isn't the overwhelming motivator in East European and West Asian countries that we're led to believe.
What you're doing is just what the Kremlin wants, which is promo something they want the world to believe in, but more importantly help them circumvent sanctions for their invasion. If India pulls out, you'll have for the most part a consortium of despotic regimes with corruption filled economic and legal systems. Amazing how lost some of you are.
Actually this is really ****ing simple.
Name one thing Putin has done since he became President that has directly had a negative impact on your family? Has Russia threatened your safety or taken money out of your wallet?
If the answer is "not really", maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and develop some self-preservation instincts.
Speaking for myself, the only people who have severely harmed me and the interests of my family are the odious people running the American government and their supporters.
Interesting example of denialism at work there.
Maybe it feels better to look at it that way, but the end result is the same. You want to police the world, you can expect pushback.
Had an interesting conversation with a guy at the gym. Came from Cuba on a raft in 85 as a child. He is strongly against Socialism. He said everyone was equal in Cuba, equally hungry. Biggest fear he said if Harris wins we will become Socialist. Any Cuban I the have met is adamantly against Biden. Cubans are Trump's best Allie in FL. Very hard working people.
I'm saying what I said in the very early days of the war. We'll eventually throw Ukraine under the bus because we don't care about it as much as the Russians do. We should have just been honest about that from the start.
Of course the canal and the trade matter. Whether the state of Israel matters is another question. One can easily argue that it's a huge liability for all kinds of reasons.
And our interventionist policy is a disaster that's harmed our standing in the world and brought us to the brink of two or three completely unnecessary wars. We need to defend ourselves and our trade. We don't need global hegemony to do that.whiterock said:Spectacularly bad application of history.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The arguments of Israel opponents have a massive faulty assumption - that the USA derives no policy benefits from our support for Israel, and/or would be better off without Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:There are few foreign policy arguments weaker than the idea that we are wasting money on Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:You will note that I typically refrain from doing that, but I will admit it takes quite a bit of restraint to do so since the arguments against our policy toward Israel are so insanely out of touch with national security realities that anti-semitism is the most obvious explanation.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Oh calm down. Israel is not wantonly attacking anyone. Israel is killing Hizballah and Hamas leadership. Collateral damage will happen. Israel goes to some lengths to minimize it.KaiBear said:whiterock said:Of all the bad things I worry might happen to my family, slaughter at the hands of Jews is simply not on the list.The_barBEARian said:
Whiterock is a Jew-slave liar.
Israel could murder his entire gentile family and he be wishing them happy Hanukkah two months from now.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese Christians were/are actually passive allies because their interests align.
It is the Sunni Lebanese factions that are killing all the Christians in Lebanon.
I see Jews/Israeli as natural allies, in a number of areas. Not all of them agree with me. That's ok.
Same cannot be said of Arab Christians. Not a lot of warm fuzzies there toward Jews.
Lebanon is a 4-way balancing act - Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, with even more significant outside players - Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, etc.....
Without Iranian support, the Shia would go back to being the hillbillies of Lebanon.
Christians and Alawites form a coalition govt in Syria, because they are each minorities in a sea of mostly (75%) Sunnis. That has not exactly translated to Lebanon at all. The Syrian regime in fact is allied with Iran and facilitates support for Hizballah in Lebanon (not Christians or Druze, each of which would have a closer tie to the Assad regime were it all about faith).
faith matters and motivates. But the end of the day, Lebanon is a very messy place that defies easy alignments. most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, it is a failed state which hosts a terrorist army that has killed thousands of Americans, and many more others. Israel is under no obligation to endure daily waves of rocketry from southern Lebanon just to keep from pissing you off.
You should thank Israel for sacrificing their young men and women to destroy Hamas and Hizballah on our behalf. Their efforts actually do make all of us safer.
Informative post.
However I don't agree that Israeli killings of Christian Lebanese and various Muslims makes US citizens safer. In fact just the opposite.
The existence of Israel and the incredible amount of influence their money purchases within our government has resulted
in the placement of thousands of US sailors and ground troops in the region. Where they are killed, and in return kill their antagonists. All to protect Israel and ( on a side note ) oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. None of which protects US citizens.
No other country provides such military assistance to Israel.
It remains an unjustifiable habit, purchased by Israeli lobbyists over the last 60 years.
Time for a new policy.
Israel is doing what should have been done decades ago....systematically destroying Iranian allied terrorist groups. We need to send them the arms & ammo to get on with it. It makes us safer.
You should read up on Hizballah. They've killed an awful lot of Americans. So has Hamas.......
Strange rebuttal.
As I am certainly calm.
Our government must refrain from being bought like sheep by Israeli lobbyists and sending our servicemen in harms way protecting Israel.
We don't need lobbyists to persuade us to arm Israel to kill Hamas and Hizballah.
We have had this money for protection relationship since the 50's and it's past time to get US servicemen out of the region.
We have a token number of US servicemen in the region, doing work that needs doing - killing terrorists.
No other country has burdened its self with sacrificing its servicemen and billions of dollars protecting Israel.
LOL we are not sacrificing our soldier to protect Israel ISRAEL is sacrificing its own soldiers for its own national security, and we get a direct benefit from that, as Israel's enemies in the region are also ours.
And it's not remotely antisemitic to question the continuation of such policies for almost 60 years.
We get more bang for the buck out of our aid to Israel than anywhere else in the world.
The whole point is there is zero need for billions of US bucks in the Middle East if we allow Israel to fight their own wars.
You have it exactly backwards. Israel cannot fight its own wars without our support. it's 12m people nestled in the middle of billions of people who detest Jews for who they are. That makes Israel an incredibly loyal ally. They have destroyed one Iranian proxy army (Hamas) and are now setting about destroying another (Hizballah). That will curtail Iranian influence throughout the region. And we won't have to shed a drop of blood to do it. The Israelis will do all the work for us. Win/Win.
No other country on earth spends the lives or money for Israel like does the United States.
Because no other nation is as large or has as broad an array of interests as we do.
It's time for the US to adopt the same attitude as the rest of the world.
Plumb goofy. We are not Switzerland or Chile or Sri Lanka.
The US tax payer has been footing the bill of aid for Israel for almost SIXTY years.
yes
A ridiculous amount of time for any country to receive so much money.
unless there is a substantial return on investment, which there is (although reasonable people can quibble about matters of degree).
And it's only maintained because Israeli lobbyists have established long term ' relationships ' with key members of our government.
There's where you left the rails. Our policy toward Israel has little to do with lobbying and everything to do with national interest fortified by domestic policy considerations. We are much better off WITH the existence of Israel than without, and the Jewish vote is not unimportant to either party.
No other country in the world plays the fool in such a manner regarding Israel.
Most of the world benefits from our support for Israel, including quite a few islamic countries.
If Israel can't support their own wars after almost 60 years of US aid; that is their responsibility; not ours.
What war does Israel fight that is not wholly are partly also our wars?
"Isolationism once cleared the way for America's ascent, making the country prosperous, powerful, and secure. Today, however, the Founders' admonition against entangling alliances has fallen into disrepute, and the word isolationist itself has become an insult. In the absence of constraints on the nation's ambition abroad, American grand strategy has fallen prey to overstretch and grown politically insolvent.
The nation now confronts a seemingly unlimited array of foreign entanglements, two decades of errant war in the Middle East, and a pandemic that is causing an economic debacle of a sort not experienced since the Great Depression.
The United States needs to rediscover the history of isolationism and apply its lessons, shrinking its footprint abroad and bringing its foreign commitments back into line with its means and purposes."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/virtue-isolationism/616499/
America's avoidance of "entangling alliances" made a ton of sense for a brand new nation, deeply in debt, poorer and weaker than most European powers of the day. It was only feasible given the nation's relative geographic isolation from those European powers, a century before the internal combustion engine made the world a very small place. We needed decades to get our house in order. And we did.
We are a vastly different nation today. We have trade relationships that matter all over the world that must be defended. And we are not in any meaningful sense an isolated country protected by oceans the way we were in 1776. The poor of the world can easily travel across oceans and walk across our border. So can terrorists. And the skies and oceans remain open to weapons systems capable of doing great harm to our way of life. and the "way of life" consideration is the biggest one of all. Our wealth will invite attack. Oldest dynamic in the world. The story of the poor riding into to burn & rape & pillage wealthier civilizations is the essence of history itself.
Isolationism is a really, really dumb idea today. It will solve not a single problem. It will only make each one of them worse. Perhaps the dumbest aspect of isolationism is the presumption that it is necessary to achieve a balanced budget. Reality is, it will only make a very small percentage of government spending available for domestic use. It will have zero impact on deficits at all - cause/effect error - foreign aid and military spending are not what drives our deficit.
The point regarding national debt is not that we can avoid a crash by cutting the defense budget. We can't. The point is that the defense budget will be cut when the pitchforks come out.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Afghanistan was to stop the training and hiding of terrorist, pretty much worked. Iraq kept Iran and Syria in check. The goal was to kill terrorist over there and not here. Pretty successful.
All of them worked up to Biden. Now it is a **** show and Iran is rich and lobbing missiles.
Far from it. The Iraq war was the best thing that ever happened to Iran.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Afghanistan was to stop the training and hiding of terrorist, pretty much worked. Iraq kept Iran and Syria in check. The goal was to kill terrorist over there and not here. Pretty successful.
All of them worked up to Biden. Now it is a **** show and Iran is rich and lobbing missiles.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Afghanistan was to stop the training and hiding of terrorist, pretty much worked. Iraq kept Iran and Syria in check. The goal was to kill terrorist over there and not here. Pretty successful.
All of them worked up to Biden. Now it is a **** show and Iran is rich and lobbing missiles.
1. In Afghanistan the political class in DC waged at 20 year war to replace the Taliban…with the Taliban
Total absolute and complete failure
Hell even Al Qaeda is back in Afghanistan now
[MARCH 22, 2024
Al Qaeda is back to its old tricks in Afghanistan. Much as it did before masterminding the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group is running militant training camps; sharing the profits of the Taliban's illicit drug, mining, and smuggling enterprises; and funneling the proceeds to affiliated jihadi groups worldwide.]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/22/al-qaeda-taliban-afghanistan-gold-mining/
2. In Iraq the U.S. overthrew the Sunni Baathist's under Saddam and replaced them with Shiites under the control of Iran. Tehran went from having a massive enemy at its border to having a trade and religious partner
At best that is a wash
(probably a long term failure since there is now a Shiite land corridor for Tehran to exert power from Iran through Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean)
Lmao. Imagine spending years + likely 10s of millions of $ to hide your money just for your enemy to give a detailed breakdown of exactly where it is and how to get there.
— Jackson Hinkle (@jacksonahinkle) October 21, 2024
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Afghanistan was to stop the training and hiding of terrorist, pretty much worked. Iraq kept Iran and Syria in check. The goal was to kill terrorist over there and not here. Pretty successful.
All of them worked up to Biden. Now it is a **** show and Iran is rich and lobbing missiles.
1. In Afghanistan the political class in DC waged at 20 year war to replace the Taliban…with the Taliban
Total absolute and complete failure
Hell even Al Qaeda is back in Afghanistan now
[MARCH 22, 2024
Al Qaeda is back to its old tricks in Afghanistan. Much as it did before masterminding the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group is running militant training camps; sharing the profits of the Taliban's illicit drug, mining, and smuggling enterprises; and funneling the proceeds to affiliated jihadi groups worldwide.]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/22/al-qaeda-taliban-afghanistan-gold-mining/
2. In Iraq the U.S. overthrew the Sunni Baathist's under Saddam and replaced them with Shiites under the control of Iran. Tehran went from having a massive enemy at its border to having a trade and religious partner
At best that is a wash
(probably a long term failure since there is now a Shiite land corridor for Tehran to exert power from Iran through Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean)
As I said, Biden/Obama???? Do not get it. They un-did every bit of sacrifice that was made over 20 years after 9/11. Say what you will about cost or whether we should be there. During the time we were in the Sandbox, terror threats to the US and Europe went down. Now we have State run terror. Biden has been a disaster
Jesus was a Jew, ya know.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:cultural ties matter. When we talk about "western civilization" we are really talking about Judeo-Christian culture far more than Greek civilization which gets so much attention. So it's not like Israel is some nation in the arm pit of the world with which we have nothing in common (say, Tajikistan.) Israel is an outpost of the western world wedged into the islamic world. And that's before we get to its proximity to areas so important to world trade (our trade and trade of allies) like the Persian Gulf, the Suez Canal, the eastern Med, etc......and how Israel is a godsend in our efforts to defend ourselves against so many terror threats that have killed thousands of Americans.Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
I mean, one really has to work hard to craft a nonsensical proposition that Israel matters not to us.
Christianity is far superior to Judaism to the point it is insulting to lump them together.
Judaism is an inherently racist religion built on a foundation of racial superiority.
Christianity is inherently an accepting religion build on a foundation of grace and forgiveness.
The Ten Commandments were.....
The Old Testament is.....
At least you're consistent = your statements on religion are as well reasoned as your statements on foreign policy.
Note that part in bold.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:what, exactly, did we do to make Japan and Germany declare war against us?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
Again, you act like that was a bad thing
The USA had no legal reason and no electoral mandate to preemptively get involved with World War II
After Pearl Harbor (and the later German declaration of war) the USA had a mandate to fight that war to total victory....knowing we had the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.
You think the USA should have attacked Japan and Germany for no reason?
Nothing....
That is why were were in the moral right....they attacked us
Now again....why were we supposed to preemptively fight that war (a war we had no interest in voluntary getting involved in) and why were the isolationists of America in the wrong?
You keep saying it's our involvement in world affairs that causes all our wars and the isolationism of 1776 is the answer, yet isolationism did not protect us in WWI or WWII, did it. Indeed, one of the overriding lessons of the 20th century for American policymakers is that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, would inevitably get dragged into everything everywhere every time unless we chose to engage and interdict and forestall, etc....
Engagement and alliance have been very successful at avoiding another big one, ya know......
It is a drop in the bucket. If we eliminated the entire defense budget, didn't spend a penny on defense......we cut the deficit by a third. And then we have gunboat diplomacy used against us, from the air and sea. We actually will have Chinese military bases on our southern border. Russia actually will send us our money back for Alaska and move in to take over.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:You should change your UserID to "Dunning-Kruger-BEAR."The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The arguments of Israel opponents have a massive faulty assumption - that the USA derives no policy benefits from our support for Israel, and/or would be better off without Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:There are few foreign policy arguments weaker than the idea that we are wasting money on Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:
You will note that I typically refrain from doing that, but I will admit it takes quite a bit of restraint to do so since the arguments against our policy toward Israel are so insanely out of touch with national security realities that anti-semitism is the most obvious explanation.
We get more bang for the buck out of our aid to Israel than anywhere else in the world.
The whole point is there is zero need for billions of US bucks in the Middle East if we allow Israel to fight their own wars.
You have it exactly backwards. Israel cannot fight its own wars without our support. it's 12m people nestled in the middle of billions of people who detest Jews for who they are. That makes Israel an incredibly loyal ally. They have destroyed one Iranian proxy army (Hamas) and are now setting about destroying another (Hizballah). That will curtail Iranian influence throughout the region. And we won't have to shed a drop of blood to do it. The Israelis will do all the work for us. Win/Win.
No other country on earth spends the lives or money for Israel like does the United States.
Because no other nation is as large or has as broad an array of interests as we do.
It's time for the US to adopt the same attitude as the rest of the world.
Plumb goofy. We are not Switzerland or Chile or Sri Lanka.
The US tax payer has been footing the bill of aid for Israel for almost SIXTY years.
yes
A ridiculous amount of time for any country to receive so much money.
unless there is a substantial return on investment, which there is (although reasonable people can quibble about matters of degree).
And it's only maintained because Israeli lobbyists have established long term ' relationships ' with key members of our government.
There's where you left the rails. Our policy toward Israel has little to do with lobbying and everything to do with national interest fortified by domestic policy considerations. We are much better off WITH the existence of Israel than without, and the Jewish vote is not unimportant to either party.
No other country in the world plays the fool in such a manner regarding Israel.
Most of the world benefits from our support for Israel, including quite a few islamic countries.
If Israel can't support their own wars after almost 60 years of US aid; that is their responsibility; not ours.
What war does Israel fight that is not wholly are partly also our wars?
This is certainly one of the stupidest posts I have read in awhile.
I hear you talking, but you aren't saying anything.
You make some astounding claims that the US is benefiting but provide no evidence.
I have provided quite a few, actually. It's you who are making the sweeping assumptions there is no benefit.
It is more accurate that a very select few may have financially benefited from Israel's kleptoparasitic relationship with the US while the great majority had their tax dollars stolen.
You mean like all the US defense contractors with hundreds of thousands of employees who sell billions of dollars of military hardware to Israel? Those things are actually used in combat, allowing us to beta test our stuff in real time without having to actually go to war to do so. There are millions of Jewish Amcits who have family in Israel and travel there; hundreds of thousands of dual citizens, and/or Israelis with claims on US citizenship (US persons). There are millions of American Christians who visit Israel to see the holy sites. Wife and daughter had a trip scheduled (via Baylor) but had to cancel last year after the Hamas attacks. Long/short of it is, there are substantial cultural, economic, and national security benefits from our relationship with Israel.
Americans are getting poorer and poorer and people are done with foreigners receiving more benefits from their own tax dollars than they receive themselves!
In an earlier day, leftists made that point about military spending everywhere. The problem with it is - it's a false dilemma. It's not "guns or butter." We are a nation which can afford to make BOTH guns and butter. Doing poorly at one does not mean you doing the other is unnecessary.
Everything Kaibear said is the truth and if you and the three other posters who liked your post refuse to even debate honestly then we need another civil war in this country... it can be the supporters of America being a vassal state for Israel side vs everyone else.
I have laid out a long list of benefits. Specifics. Many times. Yet here you are, making wild-assed nonsensical claims, like America being a "vassal state" of Israel, solely because you have a 1st grade understanding of national security policy issues.
Our $35 trillion historic debt-to-GDP says otherwise about America being a nation that can fight Israel's wars while also remaining prosperous at home.
We can easily afford to do that, because it is a pin***** in the deficit.
I have always said if Jews and Christians who feel Jews are the chosen people and a master race want to donate money to Israel out of their personal 401k's I have absolutely no problem with that.
Its when you start forcing the rest of us to fund this foreign nation, it becomes a big problem.
It's an even bigger problem if we don't.
My national security policy is a lot like Israel's - defend our own borders and don't donate money to other countries to defend their borders.
Israel has quite robust security relationships around the world. (because it's wise to do so....those who can, do).
If an estimated defense budget $600 billion (and growing) per annum is a drop in the bucket to you then you are not a rational person.
I emphasis *estimated* because they are spending so much money they cant even track where it all goes.
National Defense is a a core responsibility of government. You cannot balance the budget there.
What good does it do to build wealth if you cannot defend it from those who would rather steal it than create it?
Sigh. See definition below. The 3rd word is fatal to your assumption. "National interest" is a subjective term, but is in no meaningful sense synonymous with "isolationism." Often, nations determine (with good reason) that military adventurism is in their national interest (national interest being the primary objective of realpolitik). Google up the word "realpolitik" yourself. Look at the names associated with it. You will see names of the exact same people who are synonymous with the policies you claim to be deeply opposed to, the men who built NATO and fought the Cold War with very muscular foreign policy objectives.Realitybites said:whiterock said:
LOL you might want to do some googling on "realpolitik" before you use it again.
"Realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean "real" in the English sense but rather connotes "things"hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest."
What I'm advocating could go next to that definition as an example. That is to say, whatever your feelings are for the Israelis, Ukrainians, and Taiwanese we had best (1) defund Israel and get them to handle their own affairs, (2) throw Ukraine under the bus, end backfiring sanctions, and start importing Russian oil and gas, and (3) negotiate a Hong Kong like exit for Taiwan. We simply cannot afford any other solution given the current state of the nation.
Beware conflating "realism" with "realpolitik." They are not the same thing. You should also familiarize yourself with Bismarck, German unification, the building of the German Empire, for context. The man who made the term famous was anything BUT an isolationist who avoided entangling alliances.
Egypt can't close the canal now, can they.....without risking losing a lot of US Aid........Sam Lowry said:
Of course the canal and the trade matter. Whether the state of Israel matters is another question. One can easily argue that it's a huge liability for all kinds of reasons.
The reason you give aid is so you can threaten to take it away, to coerce behavior short of force.
Hizballah was hard at it killing Americans decades before the "land bridge" existed.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:OR it shows that an isolationist stance is fine for a citizen, but when looked at within the entire US foreign and domestic policy we don't have the luxury of non-involvement.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet, he committed us in Viet Nam. Initiated the policy to contain China and the Soviet Uniton. Used the CIA to subvert Communism...Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.
What you describe as isolationism is in fact the realpolitik surrounding the sort of foreign policy that a country that is trillions in debt with a shrinking native population, with a declining standard of living and life expectancy can afford. The clearest manifestation of this is: "A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems."
We aren't living in Eisenhower and Alan Dulles' America anymore, and you need to quit pretending that we are.
And even Eisenhower (the great American hero and WWII general) was warning decades ago against endless foreign entanglements and the growing power of the Military industrial complex
[In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Ukraine would be the poster child for Eisenhower Policy.
Well he certainly sent money but committed no American troops in Vietnam...that is a little overstating the case to say he committed us to Vietnam....there was big gap between that and then later sending 400,000 to 500,000 American soldiers to fight a costly decades long guerrilla war.
But maybe that is a good reason to be careful about how the DC political class can get sucked into a costly conflict by starting out sending taxpayer money and later actually fighting a ground war (Ukraine anyone?)
Completely depends on where and when.....and the level of involvement the USA can handle.
Afghanistan is a prime example of where getting volved does not work....its a waste of time and resources....you can't kill enough Afghans or spend enough money on them to make them reliable allies or build up the country.
You are building the preverbal house of sand.
US interventionism since the late 90s has been a very very mixed bag
Afghanistan was to stop the training and hiding of terrorist, pretty much worked. Iraq kept Iran and Syria in check. The goal was to kill terrorist over there and not here. Pretty successful.
All of them worked up to Biden. Now it is a **** show and Iran is rich and lobbing missiles.
1. In Afghanistan the political class in DC waged at 20 year war to replace the Taliban…with the Taliban
Total absolute and complete failure
Hell even Al Qaeda is back in Afghanistan now
[MARCH 22, 2024
Al Qaeda is back to its old tricks in Afghanistan. Much as it did before masterminding the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group is running militant training camps; sharing the profits of the Taliban's illicit drug, mining, and smuggling enterprises; and funneling the proceeds to affiliated jihadi groups worldwide.]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/22/al-qaeda-taliban-afghanistan-gold-mining/
2. In Iraq the U.S. overthrew the Sunni Baathist's under Saddam and replaced them with Shiites under the control of Iran. Tehran went from having a massive enemy at its border to having a trade and religious partner
At best that is a wash
(probably a long term failure since there is now a Shiite land corridor for Tehran to exert power from Iran through Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean)
That is not to say the land bridge doesn't matter. But it is an efficiency, not a necessity.
I'm quite familiar with history, thanks.
Just because foreign policy wonks from the 20th century used it as justification for their views doesn't mean that their views, or their underlying assumptions have any validity in the 21st.
Just because foreign policy wonks from the 20th century used it as justification for their views doesn't mean that their views, or their underlying assumptions have any validity in the 21st.
True but there is a lot of waste in the defense budget that can be safely eliminated. Probably most of it is inside the walls of the Pentagon.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
historian said:
True but there is a lot of waste in the defense budget that can be safely eliminated. Probably most of it is inside the walls of the Pentagon.
Oh yea....
[Pentagon can't account for 63% of nearly $4 trillion in assets
DOD regularly buys parts and equipment it doesn't need because it can't keep track of the parts and equipment it already owns]
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
whiterock said:It is a drop in the bucket. If we eliminated the entire defense budget, didn't spend a penny on defense......we cut the deficit by a third. And then we have gunboat diplomacy used against us, from the air and sea. We actually will have Chinese military bases on our southern border. Russia actually will send us our money back for Alaska and move in to take over.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:You should change your UserID to "Dunning-Kruger-BEAR."The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Isolationism as a way of avoiding war is really, really dumb. It's a leading cause of war.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The arguments of Israel opponents have a massive faulty assumption - that the USA derives no policy benefits from our support for Israel, and/or would be better off without Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:There are few foreign policy arguments weaker than the idea that we are wasting money on Israel.KaiBear said:whiterock said:
You will note that I typically refrain from doing that, but I will admit it takes quite a bit of restraint to do so since the arguments against our policy toward Israel are so insanely out of touch with national security realities that anti-semitism is the most obvious explanation.
We get more bang for the buck out of our aid to Israel than anywhere else in the world.
The whole point is there is zero need for billions of US bucks in the Middle East if we allow Israel to fight their own wars.
You have it exactly backwards. Israel cannot fight its own wars without our support. it's 12m people nestled in the middle of billions of people who detest Jews for who they are. That makes Israel an incredibly loyal ally. They have destroyed one Iranian proxy army (Hamas) and are now setting about destroying another (Hizballah). That will curtail Iranian influence throughout the region. And we won't have to shed a drop of blood to do it. The Israelis will do all the work for us. Win/Win.
No other country on earth spends the lives or money for Israel like does the United States.
Because no other nation is as large or has as broad an array of interests as we do.
It's time for the US to adopt the same attitude as the rest of the world.
Plumb goofy. We are not Switzerland or Chile or Sri Lanka.
The US tax payer has been footing the bill of aid for Israel for almost SIXTY years.
yes
A ridiculous amount of time for any country to receive so much money.
unless there is a substantial return on investment, which there is (although reasonable people can quibble about matters of degree).
And it's only maintained because Israeli lobbyists have established long term ' relationships ' with key members of our government.
There's where you left the rails. Our policy toward Israel has little to do with lobbying and everything to do with national interest fortified by domestic policy considerations. We are much better off WITH the existence of Israel than without, and the Jewish vote is not unimportant to either party.
No other country in the world plays the fool in such a manner regarding Israel.
Most of the world benefits from our support for Israel, including quite a few islamic countries.
If Israel can't support their own wars after almost 60 years of US aid; that is their responsibility; not ours.
What war does Israel fight that is not wholly are partly also our wars?
This is certainly one of the stupidest posts I have read in awhile.
I hear you talking, but you aren't saying anything.
You make some astounding claims that the US is benefiting but provide no evidence.
I have provided quite a few, actually. It's you who are making the sweeping assumptions there is no benefit.
It is more accurate that a very select few may have financially benefited from Israel's kleptoparasitic relationship with the US while the great majority had their tax dollars stolen.
You mean like all the US defense contractors with hundreds of thousands of employees who sell billions of dollars of military hardware to Israel? Those things are actually used in combat, allowing us to beta test our stuff in real time without having to actually go to war to do so. There are millions of Jewish Amcits who have family in Israel and travel there; hundreds of thousands of dual citizens, and/or Israelis with claims on US citizenship (US persons). There are millions of American Christians who visit Israel to see the holy sites. Wife and daughter had a trip scheduled (via Baylor) but had to cancel last year after the Hamas attacks. Long/short of it is, there are substantial cultural, economic, and national security benefits from our relationship with Israel.
Americans are getting poorer and poorer and people are done with foreigners receiving more benefits from their own tax dollars than they receive themselves!
In an earlier day, leftists made that point about military spending everywhere. The problem with it is - it's a false dilemma. It's not "guns or butter." We are a nation which can afford to make BOTH guns and butter. Doing poorly at one does not mean you doing the other is unnecessary.
Everything Kaibear said is the truth and if you and the three other posters who liked your post refuse to even debate honestly then we need another civil war in this country... it can be the supporters of America being a vassal state for Israel side vs everyone else.
I have laid out a long list of benefits. Specifics. Many times. Yet here you are, making wild-assed nonsensical claims, like America being a "vassal state" of Israel, solely because you have a 1st grade understanding of national security policy issues.
Our $35 trillion historic debt-to-GDP says otherwise about America being a nation that can fight Israel's wars while also remaining prosperous at home.
We can easily afford to do that, because it is a pin***** in the deficit.
I have always said if Jews and Christians who feel Jews are the chosen people and a master race want to donate money to Israel out of their personal 401k's I have absolutely no problem with that.
Its when you start forcing the rest of us to fund this foreign nation, it becomes a big problem.
It's an even bigger problem if we don't.
My national security policy is a lot like Israel's - defend our own borders and don't donate money to other countries to defend their borders.
Israel has quite robust security relationships around the world. (because it's wise to do so....those who can, do).
If an estimated defense budget $600 billion (and growing) per annum is a drop in the bucket to you then you are not a rational person.
I emphasis *estimated* because they are spending so much money they cant even track where it all goes.
China spends a third of what we do on defense and yet its indisputable if they wanted to take Taiwan and wreck the global order, they could do it and the US couldnt stop them. If we developed a defensive posture and cut spending by two thirds we wouldn't be sacrificing Alaska.
National Defense is a a core responsibility of government. You cannot balance the budget there.
National Defense... exactly! Like securing our Southern (and now Northern too) border!!! Rather than fulfilling their core responsibility, our clown, uni-party, ZOG government is expending our military budget in the ass end of Ukraine or fighting wars on behalf of a foreign country(Israel). The federal government has broken its contract with the American tax payer by not fulfilling its core responsibilities. That is why I believe there is a great legal argument for tax payers to stop filing their federal taxes.
What good does it do to build wealth if you cannot defend it from those who would rather steal it than create it?
Wealth? What wealth? We are $35 trillion in the red with historic high levels of debt-to-GDP. You sir, had the privilege of living in America during its golden years. The greatest generation left the Boomers and Gen Xers in a much better situation than they had with opportunities, affordable housing, and high quality of life . The Boomers and Gen Xers have left the millennials and Gen Zers in a much worse situation than they had with half as many opportunities and most young people in so much debt they have to live at home with their parents. And I shudder to think of what Gen Alpha and the subsequent generations will have to endure... but I dont think the country as we know it will last too many more generations. The Boomers and Gen Xers did a fantastic job redistributing American industry and wealth abroad but did absolutely no favors for their children and grandchildren.
Redbrickbear said:historian said:
True but there is a lot of waste in the defense budget that can be safely eliminated. Probably most of it is inside the walls of the Pentagon.
Oh yea....
[Pentagon can't account for 63% of nearly $4 trillion in assets
DOD regularly buys parts and equipment it doesn't need because it can't keep track of the parts and equipment it already owns]
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
And a bunch of it ended up in the hands of the Taliban because of Biden's moronic incompetence. There might have been some treason too.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Rather that is one of the great myths of the 20th century. In fact we were determined to go to war and actively sought to provoke hostilities with Germany and Japan.whiterock said:Note that part in bold.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:what, exactly, did we do to make Japan and Germany declare war against us?Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Isolationists ran the show until December 7, 1941Sam Lowry said:
"Isolationists" have a 1st Grade understanding of national security, but your idea of strategic benefit is...the fact that Israel is a popular tourist destination? That's amusing.
Again, you act like that was a bad thing
The USA had no legal reason and no electoral mandate to preemptively get involved with World War II
After Pearl Harbor (and the later German declaration of war) the USA had a mandate to fight that war to total victory....knowing we had the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.
You think the USA should have attacked Japan and Germany for no reason?
Nothing....
That is why were were in the moral right....they attacked us
Now again....why were we supposed to preemptively fight that war (a war we had no interest in voluntary getting involved in) and why were the isolationists of America in the wrong?
You keep saying it's our involvement in world affairs that causes all our wars and the isolationism of 1776 is the answer, yet isolationism did not protect us in WWI or WWII, did it. Indeed, one of the overriding lessons of the 20th century for American policymakers is that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, would inevitably get dragged into everything everywhere every time unless we chose to engage and interdict and forestall, etc....
Engagement and alliance have been very successful at avoiding another big one, ya know......
That's a silly myth. There is no evidence that FDR or anyone else in the US government wanted an attack on Pearl Harbor.
Germany is different: when Hitler declared war on the US he was simply acknowledging the reality of an undeclared naval war that existed in the North Atlantic throughout 1941 and part of 1940. Lend Lease in 1941 increased that. But this was inevitable because of our trade relationship with the UK and our natural preference for the Brits over the Nazis. It was in no one's interest for Hitler to win that war, not even that of the German people. American leaders in 1940-41 remembered what happened in WWI with German U-boats sinking American ships & American lives at risk. It was a similar situation although the German govt of 1914 bore little resemblance to that of 1940.
It was the opposite of isolationism, to a degree, & definitely in America's best interest.
Germany is different: when Hitler declared war on the US he was simply acknowledging the reality of an undeclared naval war that existed in the North Atlantic throughout 1941 and part of 1940. Lend Lease in 1941 increased that. But this was inevitable because of our trade relationship with the UK and our natural preference for the Brits over the Nazis. It was in no one's interest for Hitler to win that war, not even that of the German people. American leaders in 1940-41 remembered what happened in WWI with German U-boats sinking American ships & American lives at risk. It was a similar situation although the German govt of 1914 bore little resemblance to that of 1940.
It was the opposite of isolationism, to a degree, & definitely in America's best interest.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
On the contrary. Our strategy was to maneuver them into firing the first shot, and that's exactly what we did.historian said:
That's a silly myth. There is no evidence that FDR or anyone else in the US government wanted an attack on Pearl Harbor.