U.S. "Unconditional" support for Israel:

[IntruderLS1]

I don't see the problem. Israel is a thriving, stable, non-threatening state in the middle of a crap storm. The U.S. supports stable democracies who don't abuse their citizens. Taiwan is another great example.

Israel doesn't break the cease fires, they respond militarily to non-stop attacks. I personally feel that if Mexico started launching rocket attacks at San Diego, I'd be ready, willing, and able to send in the troops. If more Mexicans get killed that San Diegans, then oh-well. IMO, it would be the offending governments fault.

 

[ssl]

Theoretically, it would be a faction; Mexico is too smart for that, so it technically would not be Mexico's fault. Although, if it were proven that the faction was supported in their mission against San Diego by the Mexican Government, hell yeah the boys and girls would fight, then the US would be 2/3's a continent. :ninja

 

[GraceAbounds]

I don't see the problem. Israel is a thriving, stable, non-threatening state in the middle of a crap storm. The U.S. supports stable democracies who don't abuse their citizens. Taiwan is another great example.

Israel doesn't break the cease fires, they respond militarily to non-stop attacks. I personally feel that if Mexico started launching rocket attacks at San Diego, I'd be ready, willing, and able to send in the troops. If more Mexicans get killed that San Diegans, then oh-well. IMO, it would be the offending governments fault.

:homo:

 

[Peter Parka]

Both sides are as guilty of arocities as each other. This blind support for Israel is sickening though hardly surprising seeing we set it up.

 

[Obdurate]

Both sides are as guilty of arocities as each other. This blind support for Israel is sickening though hardly surprising seeing we set it up.

Yeah, and no wonder Palestine is getting butt fucked.

 

[ssl]

Also, as allies, you have to have unconditional support. Just has to be so, or you are not true allies.

 

[Minor Axis]

You see no problem with "unconditional support"? That's a problem. Here's an example: Israel decides to unilaterally nuke Iran. "Well, you say Israel would never do that." That's besides the point. You're saying that if they did we should support them as in unconditionally.

 

[Hans]

You see no problem with "unconditional support"? That's a problem. Here's an example: Israel decides to unilaterally nuke Iran. "Well, you say Israel would never do that." That's besides the point. You're saying that if they did we should support them as in unconditionally.

I dont think it would ever go that far. I dont think theyd even risk losing te American alliance that they have right now.

 

[Minor Axis]

I see so we give them conditional unconditional support.

 

[Minor Axis]

well if they were to nuke iran, im pretty sure that would piss a few people off. arent all nukes supposed to be disarmed right now?

I don't think Israel has even officially announced they have them so who knows (but I could be wrong about this).

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't think Israel has even officially announced they have them so who knows (but I good be wrong about this).

I assumed they had admitted having them. looks like you might be right.


Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal (an estimated 100 to 200) of nuclear weapons,[1] and maintains intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program

 

[Hans]

I see so we give them conditional unconditional support.

It would be ignorant to give someone other than yourself unconditional support in a diplomatic perspective.

 

[Minor Axis]

It would be ignorant to give someone other than yourself unconditional support in a diplomatic perspective.

Dude, I'm not the one who suggested unconditional support was a good thing.

 

[Hans]

Oh, by no means am I saying you suggested it, Im saying the idea itself is stupid.

 

[Minor Axis]

Oh, by no means am I saying you suggested it, Im saying the idea itself is stupid.

Okey dokey.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Both sides are as guilty of arocities as each other. This blind support for Israel is sickening though hardly surprising seeing we set it up.

I would be willing to say fairly confidently that the atrocities are LARGELY lopsided on the non-Israeli side.

You see no problem with "unconditional support"? That's a problem. Here's an example: Israel decides to unilaterally nuke Iran. "Well, you say Israel would never do that." That's besides the point. You're saying that if they did we should support them as in unconditionally.

You may or may not notice that I put the word "Unconditional" in quotes in the title. When they started building the fence a few years ago, we started pulling their funds. We're not in any way just giving them a free ticket to do whatever they want. In all seriousness though, who are we to tell them they can't defend themselves from a neighboring territory that shoots rockets on a daily basis at their civilians?

I don't think the U.S. would stand by while Israel started lobing nukes. If they take unilateral steps in traditional means to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program though, why is that a problem? Iran has stated publicly that their intention is to destroy Israel. It's be pretty freaking retarded IMO to allow them the opportunity.

If somebody looks you in the eye and says "I'm going to kill you, give me a minute to break out my gun and assemble it." Are you going to give him a chance, or are you going to take matters into your own hands?

I gotta tell you, he'd better be bigger, stronger, and faster than me if he's going to build his gun before I break his neck.

 

[Peter Parka]

I would be willing to say fairly confidently that the atrocities are LARGELY lopsided on the non-Israeli side.

Where do you get this information from? You honestly don't believe Israel have been fighting dirty too???

 

[Minor Axis]

You may or may not notice that I put the word "Unconditional" in quotes in the title.

Honestly I did not focus on that. But it seemed in your first post you supported the notion.

The problem with Israel is that "tit for tat", settlements on the East Bank, and other issues are keeping them at odds with their neighbors. I'm not saying it's all Israel's fault though. There are definitely Arabs with an agenda. But Israel has proven that the "you hit me, I hit you" strategy has gotten them 60 years of grief.

I almost laughed when George Bush who had been in office for over a year ignoring the Middle East decided to go over one weekend and "fix it", right... Our Administration has been clueless. I especially was concerned when Sec State Rice in response to Hamas being elected in Lebanon, said something to the effect of "we had no idea it would go that way." Case in point. There are lots of experts who did know, but since Bush came into office, our government does not seem to want or need experts. They know what they want and don't want to be confused by the facts. Just read Fareed Zakaria who has a regular column in Newsweek and has a show on CNN. He is very well grounded on Middle East issues, he's smart (I'd say brilliant) and fair.

 

[GraceAbounds]

When they started building the fence a few years ago, we started pulling their funds. We're not in any way just giving them a free ticket to do whatever they want. In all seriousness though, who are we to tell them they can't defend themselves from a neighboring territory that shoots rockets on a daily basis at their civilians?

I don't think the U.S. would stand by while Israel started lobing nukes. If they take unilateral steps in traditional means to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program though, why is that a problem? Iran has stated publicly that their intention is to destroy Israel. It's be pretty freaking retarded IMO to allow them the opportunity.

If somebody looks you in the eye and says "I'm going to kill you, give me a minute to break out my gun and assemble it." Are you going to give him a chance, or are you going to take matters into your own hands?

I gotta tell you, he'd better be bigger, stronger, and faster than me if he's going to build his gun before I break his neck.

:homo:

You just have too much common sense for your own good Scott. Whatever are we to do with you.