|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#42
July 4th 03, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (Arie Kazachin) wrote in message ... In message - (Kevin Brooks) writes: [snip] points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen). It started to happen gradually when Benjamin Netaniyahoo was at the PM post: Israel started on its own a multi-year initiative to reduce the aid sum by 100M$ per year. But he only stayed 3 years at this post - after failing to prevent Netaniyahoo's win in 1996, in 1999 elections the US made every effort to not let it fail again and with lots of US-funded pro-Barak "associations" Netaniyahoo lost to the most worthless PM I remember. Needless to say, Barak stopped the process of gradual reduction of aid that Netaniyahoo started. In general, US administrations from both sides prefare Israeli elections to be won by our left (which act to increase the ammount of aid we take) than by our right (which act to gradually decrease the ammount of aid). It almost looks like US administrations are not interested in Israel stopping asking for aid. Why? I had a hunch but you gave a figure few lines below which supports my hunch: So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections. Its just shows how much the US and Israel are close to each other. "Close" to each other? Ever heard of Pollard? Or the DoD analysis of the major espionage threats facing the US (hint--Israel was waaay up that list)? Selling every weapon you can to the PRC? And you call that *close*? Brooks snip 
|
|
#43
July 4th 03, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be baseless. more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions. because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off. which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise is just plain wrong. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break... Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. Stretch much? nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli press at the time with that disagreement. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. No, it is not. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the aggressor in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of arming terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel. And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/ But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom. More pure BS. Brooks
|
|
#44
July 4th 03, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Richard Conway) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . .. On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: wrote in message . .. On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: (Quant) wrote in message . com... This post is specially for brooks. Hebrew: http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes...asp?did=701548 Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only Boeing planes by El Al. What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on this contract as much as you want So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo. LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen). American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to happen. Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware. Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion. And if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases themselves)? Brooks
|
|
#45
July 4th 03, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(Richard Conway) wrote in message . com... wrote in message . .. On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: wrote in message . .. On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: (Quant) wrote in message . com... This post is specially for brooks. Hebrew: http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes...asp?did=701548 Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only Boeing planes by El Al. What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on this contract as much as you want So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo. LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen). American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to happen. Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware. Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion. Again and again, you're spreading false arguments. USD 600 mn are the direct aid. USD 2100 mn are the military aid. = 78% - must be spent on American products And if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases themselves)? Brooks If you were not selling to Israel you couldn't sell so much as you already did to the Arabs because it would cause Israel to lose its superiority and the consequence will be a full war in the Mideast.
|
|
#46
July 4th 03, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks. It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help. It's been losing ground literally ever since. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be baseless. ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began. In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s. I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs. more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions. Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated out in the last 20 years. If anything, it would be the Christian Right that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided aid and arms embargo on Israel. because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off. Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B to its enemies annually? That would be nuts. Let the US embargo BOTH sides, and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does. which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise is just plain wrong. No it ain't! Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization of the Negev in the 1950s. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break... No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish. Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. Stretch much? Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916. nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli press at the time with that disagreement. REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can read either. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas, and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Yeah, a totally honest Arab source. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel. I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual. And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/ But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone else the US considers a mortal threat. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it. Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better tank, the Merkava II. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans, or do you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an Israeli project? could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly. It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom. More pure BS. Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened.
|
|
#47
July 4th 03, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (Richard Conway) wrote in message . com... wrote in message . .. On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: wrote in message . .. On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: (Quant) wrote in message . com... This post is specially for brooks. Hebrew: http://www.globes.co.il/serve/globes...asp?did=701548 Israel Aircraft Industries was excluded from the Airbus 380 project because of a political decision of the goverment of Israel to buy only Boeing planes by El Al. What brand of cheese do you prefer to go with that whine? Hey, turn down the billions in US dollars your nation receives each year from the US taxpayers, then you can come back and whine about losing out on this contract as much as you want So you acknowledge that "aid" to Israel is nothing but a quid pro quo. LOL! Not hardly. You need to retake that course in logic--the salient points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen). American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to happen. Absolutely! 75% of that aid MUST be spent on American hardware. Nope. Not if you are looking at the TOTAL aid package, of which the direct military credits makes up only a relatively small portion. Again and again, you're spreading false arguments. USD 600 mn are the direct aid. USD 2100 mn are the military aid. Depends on how you look at it: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm This was tagged onto a report from a USian who had just noted the destructive acts of Israelis from the Beit Hadassah settlement aimed at a USAID improvement project in Hebron (vandalism, even stone throwing at construcion workers--and wouldn't you know it, *none* of those Israeli stonethrowers were shot by the IDF...go figure). = 78% - must be spent on American products And if we were not selling to Israel, how much *more* could we sell to Arab nations (most of whom actually *pay* for their purchases themselves)? Brooks If you were not selling to Israel you couldn't sell so much as you already did to the Arabs because it would cause Israel to lose its superiority and the consequence will be a full war in the Mideast. Yeah, right. But weren't you just spouting off about how *Israeli* are so superior to USian products? Brooks
|
|
#48
July 4th 03, 09:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks. It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help. It's been losing ground literally ever since. None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control your rants. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be baseless. ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began. In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s. I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs. No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM"). So you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced US arms to the Arab nations. more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions. Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated out in the last 20 years. Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine. I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic characterizations. If anything, it would be the Christian Right that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided aid and arms embargo on Israel. They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand. because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off. Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B to its enemies annually? That would be nuts. This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too". Let the US embargo BOTH sides, and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does. Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential cash cow. which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise is just plain wrong. No it ain't! Yes, it is. Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization of the Negev in the 1950s. None of which has anything to do with the fact that Israel coveted the West Bank and the area around Jerusalem, and none of which disputes the *fact* that they were indeed in cahoots with the Anglo-French plan to repossess the Suez Canal, which would have left Israel with the entire Sinai. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break... No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish. Hell, you can't even prove that strange bit about the US using Pythion AAM's to arm its aircraft, so just how the heck are you gonna do it for this case? Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. Stretch much? Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916. We did not keep Vera Cruz (actually predating the 1916 bit, IIRC--my granddaddy was there...), now did we? nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli press at the time with that disagreement. REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can read either. Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982). There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas, and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Yeah, a totally honest Arab source. Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel. I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual. Coming from someone who thinks we are using Pythons... And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/ But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone else the US considers a mortal threat. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it. LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand per year (that is per Israeli citizen). Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better tank, the Merkava II. The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do when they have none. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans, Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification. or do you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an Israeli project? LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again. could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII. Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument? ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly. It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint. It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom. More pure BS. Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened. You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion.... Brooks
|
|
#49
July 5th 03, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks. It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help. It's been losing ground literally ever since. None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control your rants. The first sale of modern weapons to Israel was with the Hawk sale by Kennedy in 1962, BECAUSE (a) Egypt had gotten medium bombers from the USSR, and (2) the Dimona reactor would have been threatened by those bombers which would have forced Israel to attack Egypt. In exchange, Kennedy forced ISrael to receive US inspectors of the Dimona plant annually, which went on till the beginning of the Nixon administration. It was cancelled because both sides got tired of the charade, where ISrael hid its bomb-making capabilities and the US knew it but couldn't prove it despite the inspections. But afterwards Israel did practically beg the US to sell aircraft to ISrael, with no results except for a few old Skyhawks. Meanwhile, the USSR was stuffing Egypt and Syria full of its most modern arms, which fortunately were less capable than the French and British arms that Israel did manage to maintain. But after '67, the US did start to arm Israel with F-4 Phantoms, and the US began to coax the Saudis and others to buy US arms instead of British arms as had been the norm till then. As the US took over protection of the Persian Gulf from the Brits, US arms sales to the Saudis, the UAE and Jordan rose concomitantly. The US embargo on both sides was over. By the 1980s, the US was selling the Arabs much more than to Israel, and the understanding I spoke of became the defacto rule in order to stifle excessive AIPAC and other opposition to the US selling more arms in dollar terms than is sold to Israel. But the latter fact is never mentioned in the media, that the US sells more to the ARabs than to Israel. I guess that's due to Jewish control of the media  ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began. In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s. I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs. No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM"). Sorry, I meant AAM. I had heard that the US does use the Python AAM. Was I misinformed? you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced US arms to the Arab nations. If that's the case, let the US and its allies stop selling arms to the Arabs, and see if I object to our cutting off aid to Israel. Indeed, I AM FOR A CUTOFF OF AID TO ISRAEL, provided that all aid and arms sales to the ARabs and hostile Muslim states is also cut off by the US and all other major powers. I'm as sick of Israel having to be a "schnorrer" state as anyone. But as long as the major powers, particularly the US, arms its enemies to the teeth, and they outnumber ISrael 100 to 1, and have all that cheap oil under their feet to pay for them without having to work for a living, I have to reluctantly accept that ISrael will need aid to offset all of that. I'll make you a bet. Let's start a major campaign to have aid to Israel cut off completely, PROVIDED it is linked to a cut off of arms sales to the Arabs and let's see who objects louder, the ISraelis or the US defense contractors! My money says that it will be the US defense contractors that will leap to the defense of aid to Israel with much greater fervor than the Israeli government. Wanna bet? more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions. Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated out in the last 20 years. Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine. I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic characterizations. Your characterization that the entire Congress is held captive by a tiny number of rich JEws operating through AIPAC is equally ludicrous. Most of Congress takes the position it does because of the defense industries in their districts, most of which have very few JEws living in them. If anything, it would be the Christian Right that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided aid and arms embargo on Israel. They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand. If there wasn't a single JEw left in America, and no AIPAC, there wouldn't be much of a difference. Millions of Bible-believing Christians will not allow us to sell the Arabs all the arms they can pay for with the oil under their feet, while cutting off all aid to ISrael to help pay for its own defense against 100 to 1 numerical superiority. Even if it wasn't Israel; even it was Taiwan instead, the fairness of the American give anybody in a similar posture a fighting chance. Whatever one may say about the American people, they are innately fair by nature. because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off. Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B to its enemies annually? That would be nuts. This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too". Alas you are not aware of what is going on inside ISrael. US companies are buying up Israeli defense companies and spiriting their engineers away to California! From the Israeli perspective, it is big America limiting their defense industry and cherry picking off the cream of their brainpower! Raytheon, Boeing, TRW, et. al, are gutting ISrael companies that have recently been privatized, luring their best people away, or forcing those who are trying to remain independent to relocate as US companies in California (and elsewhere) thereby moving their corporate headquarters, with all the jobs that corporate headquarters usually generate, "offshore" TO THE US!!! The US is NOT a sucker country! When it gives with one hand, it eventually takes back with the other! I'm not being critical of American generosity, but when it comes to business, Americans are not the patsies as some would want to believe. The US did not go into business 227 years ago to make a loss! Happy Fourth of July. Let the US embargo BOTH sides, and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does. Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential cash cow. which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise is just plain wrong. No it ain't! Yes, it is. Israel lost a helluva lot more people proportionately to its population in the 1950s then America lost in 9/11. Probably ten times as many proportionately. I lived in Israel and heard plenty about fedayeen terrorization of the Negev in the 1950s. None of which has anything to do with the fact that Israel coveted the West Bank and the area around Jerusalem, and none of which disputes the *fact* that they were indeed in cahoots with the Anglo-French plan to repossess the Suez Canal, which would have left Israel with the entire Sinai. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break... No breaks, and I can PROVE everything I say if you wish. Hell, you can't even prove that strange bit about the US using Pythion AAM's to arm its aircraft, so just how the heck are you gonna do it for this case? Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. Stretch much? Hardly. I understate the case. Imagine if thousands of Americans in the Southwest were being murdered by Mexican terrorists. How long would it take for the US to invade Mexico? Think General Pershing in 1916. We did not keep Vera Cruz (actually predating the 1916 bit, IIRC--my granddaddy was there...), now did we? nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli press at the time with that disagreement. REFERENCE, please! Actual source text, in Hebrew or English, as you wish. I can read either. Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982). There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas, and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Yeah, a totally honest Arab source. Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel. I don't accept your figures as being factual. MOre fictional than factual. Coming from someone who thinks we are using Pythons... And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/ But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone else the US considers a mortal threat. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it. LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand per year (that is per Israeli citizen). Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better tank, the Merkava II. The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do when they have none. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans, Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification. or do you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an Israeli project? LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again. could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII. Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument? ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly. It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint. It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom. More pure BS. Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened. You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion.... Brooks
|
|
#50
July 5th 03, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message Menachem Begin: "In June 1967 we...had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982). PLEASE read Oren's recent book "Six Days of War" to update yourself on the realities. While it is true that Nasser would have wanted to gain a huge political victory without a war if you could get away with it, reimposing a blockade on Eilat and placing the Egyptian army into Sinai, the fact is that a plan to attack Israel on May 27th was derailed by a fluke! Had it gone through as Amer had intended, the entire thing might have ended very differently indeed. Look, Khruschev might not have intended war when he placed missiles and nukes into Cuba either, but things might have ended very differently if he had decided to call Kennedy's bluff and pushed through the blockade. There is even more than that which he had to say, but that was the result of a quick check--do a google and you can find more. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. Chemical Ali and Comical Ali are two different guys. One murdered using gas, and the other killed us with his funny Arab lies. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Yeah, a totally honest Arab source. Nope, a US source, with past members of the Board of Directors including the likes of the old Senator Fullbright. Fullbright is as much full of **** as Saddam Hussein. But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? Their aid has no rationale at all. They have numerical superiority. THeir army is stronger now thanks to US aid than ever in history. They have the Sinai back and ISrael's strategic depth has been totally negated. They pay no price for their aid; Israel does. Why should Egypt complain. Israel's aid comes at a heavy price to ISrael. and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US cuts off ALL SALES TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM states, then I would support a similar cutoff of Israeli sales to China, Cuba and Quebec, or anyone else the US considers a mortal threat. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Only the politicians and greedy contractors. Most Israelis hardly benefit from this fabulous largesse you think is being lavished upon it. LOL! On a per capita basis, only to the tune of around $14 thousand per year (that is per Israeli citizen). IT MOSTLY GOES STRAIGHT FROM THE US TREASURY TO Boeing and other defense contractors and THEIR WORKERS!!! Your figures and conclusions are BOTH bogus! Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. Oh, but Egypt does. It produces them under license. Israel has its own better tank, the Merkava II. The statement was they were living in M1 tanks--kind of hard to do when they have none. Okay, Apaches and F-16's. Those make very comfortable living rooms for the men who almost all serve 30 or more days a year inhabiting them. Some luxury. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? You mean the Patriots that DIDN'T work at all during the first Gulf War which the Israelis later helped modify and improve for the Americans, Get a grip, PAC 3 is NOT an Israeli modification. And you know this how? or do you mean the Israeli designed Arrow II that the US did mostly fund, but mainly to help it get around the US-Soviet ABM treaty since it was an Israeli project? LOL! That's a hoot. And that is NOT the reason--try again. Ha! The simple fact is that Israel has the only working theater ABM system in the world at the moment, that has passed all of its tests with flying colors. And it was designed by Israelis and not by Americans. The US put up most of the money and got control over its sale and full access to the design and technology. A bargain if there ever was one. could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. So do the Americans, thanks to Jewish scientists used during WWII. Groannn....so you want to make this a racial/religious argument? The JEwish nation-in-exile was THE major contributor to the creation and development of nuclear power, period!!! Israel has a thousand times more RIGHT to nuclear WMD than the US or the UK. Indeed, the US and UK absconded the patents from Leo Szilard. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. How much of it do you read? Do you read the Israeli Hebrew press? It is a MAJOR concern, but Israel cannot press it as the US will do nothing much about it, and Israel won't get anywhere with it. So it does so quietly. It doesn't go to the press with every concern or complaint. It ain't a major threat. If you think it is, provide proof otherwise. Israel doesn't accept your word for it. Go read the Israeli military press. Because you're not an Israeli and you are not threatened. But when the Russians put a handful of missiles and nukes 90 miles offshore, the US was ready to go to full-stop war. Israel, just like the US, is not going to put its survival in anybody else's hands. Anyone within hitting distance of Israel who doesn't recognize it, or is openly hostile to it, and is producing WMD, is playing with fire as Israel will not wait for death to suddenly arrive. That's why the US is doing what it is in the ME, trying to avoid nuclear war, which will happen if Israel feels mortally threatened. You are drifting further and further off the line of discussion.... Brooks
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Linear Mode
