More fuel on the fire

[ScottishJohn]

The US have just signed a new arms deal with Israel which will deliver $30 Billion of military aid to Israel over the next ten years. This is a 25% increase in military funding, and comes as part of a wider strategy arming other 'friendly' states in the middle east.

When the US pull out of Iraq there will be an immediate escalation in the conflict there, and it will inevitably spill over into neighbouring countries. What we see IMO are American defense contractors gearing up for this, and American taxpayers footing the bill.

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has signed a deal that will provide Israel with $30bn (£14.8bn) of military aid over the next 10 years.

Mr Burns called the aid package an "investment in peace", saying "peace cannot be made without strength".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6948981.stm

That last bit - sound like 1984 to anyone?!

 

[Voegelin]

What we see IMO are American defense contractors gearing up for this, and American taxpayers footing the bill.

Well you got Raytheon in MA and Senator John Kerry's brother Cameron, a convert to Judaism, working for a law firm which represents companies engaged in trade with Israel. Then in California there is Lockheed Martin and Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Democrats run the Senate and the House now, look at the top ten donors to the Democratic party and see how many of those who spent hundreds of millions getting Pelosi and Reid in power are Catholic or Protestant. The man who sponsored Howard Dean's rise in the party was both the President of AIPAC and Chairman of the DNC.

Then look at the top ten defense contractors and notice how many are from Blue States. Quite a few. The top ones, which account for the bulk of the contractors, are Democratic Party strongholds (MA, CA, WA, CT, MD). That old whipping boy Halliburton is way down the list.


See how easy it it to play this game?

 

[Verv]

Hate to be blunt, John, but it does not sound irrational to say that peace must be made through strength.

Do you think in a state of little government power people are less likely to fight? In the absence of a government authority, are people less likely to commit crimes or more likely to do so having no one to punish them?

Man naturally requires a strong entity to keep the peace. The Wild West was not a hippie commune with the lack of government presence. It was far from it.

In any situation where there are multiple groups vying for power and there is no one who is a clear leader, who is clearly the strongest, there will be no peace. This is a basic principle of human existence.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Well you got Raytheon in MA and Senator John Kerry's brother Cameron, a convert to Judaism, working for a law firm which represents companies engaged in trade with Israel. Then in California there is Lockheed Martin and Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Democrats run the Senate and the House now, look at the top ten donors to the Democratic party and see how many of those who spent hundreds of millions getting Pelosi and Reid in power are Catholic or Protestant. The man who sponsored Howard Dean's rise in the party was both the President of AIPAC and Chairman of the DNC.

Then look at the top ten defense contractors and notice how many are from Blue States. Quite a few. The top ones, which account for the bulk of the contractors, are Democratic Party strongholds (MA, CA, WA, CT, MD). That old whipping boy Halliburton is way down the list.


See how easy it it to play this game?

I didn't say Republican or Democrat, I said American. As far as I am concerned there is little difference between Republican or Democrat.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Hate to be blunt, John, but it does not sound irrational to say that peace must be made through strength.

Do you think in a state of little government power people are less likely to fight? In the absence of a government authority, are people less likely to commit crimes or more likely to do so having no one to punish them?

Man naturally requires a strong entity to keep the peace. The Wild West was not a hippie commune with the lack of government presence. It was far from it.

In any situation where there are multiple groups vying for power and there is no one who is a clear leader, who is clearly the strongest, there will be no peace. This is a basic principle of human existence.

Strength is not just a case of military might. The best Leaders are not merely those who throw their weight around most effectively, but those who can convince others to follow them.

 

[MachZer0]

Hate to be blunt, John, but it does not sound irrational to say that peace must be made through strength.

There is indeed peace without strength. We usually call it surrender

 

[KomissarSteve]

There is indeed peace without strength. We usually call it surrender

This black-and-white, surrender-or-total-victory mentality seems to be a rather inherently dangerous mentality. It certainly doesn't lend itself to the type of nuanced policy that has kept the U.S. the most powerful nation on Earth for the last few decades.

 

[TheReasoner]

This black-and-white, surrender-or-total-victory mentality seems to be a rather inherently dangerous mentality. It certainly doesn't lend itself to the type of nuanced policy that has kept the U.S. the most powerful nation on Earth for the last few decades.

Dangerous is putting it mildly.

John has excellent points in the OP in my opinion, and I have to agree with him - the differences between Republican and Democrat are usually trivial. If there are any at all.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I second faith guardian. The OP title is more than apt here and John brings up relevant points.

Iraq: first one creates a fire by creating/allowing a power vacuum by not planning for the peace at all. Then one tries to stop the fire from spreading by distributing flame-throwers all around.

Iran: first one removes two hostile-to-Iran regimes from Iran's neighbourhood, the Taliban in the east and Hussein to the west, and creates conditions where oil-revenue-rich Iran's power in the region grows exponentially. Then one starts arming other powers in the region to counter the threat one by one's own actions has created.

I think John had it quite right. It all leads to this:

The Israeli defence ministry will be able to spend a little over 25% of the military aid inside Israel itself - an important factor both in maintaining Israel's own industrial base and in maintaining its technical edge over any combination of adversaries.

Israel would probably like to have spent even more on domestically-produced weaponry but the Bush administration, mindful of pressure from America's own defence lobby, was unwilling to give more ground.

And I third John and faith guardian. As far as US foreign policy goes, I cannot tell Democrat presidents/congress and Republican presidents/congress apart.

 

[KarateCowboy]

And I third John and faith guardian. As far as US foreign policy goes, I cannot tell Democrat presidents/congress and Republican presidents/congress apart.

That demonstrates a pretty high level of ignorance of American politics.

I didn't say Republican or Democrat, I said American. As far as I am concerned there is little difference between Republican or Democrat.

Indeed. And with that level of ignorance it is no wonder Euro-weenies see no difference between terrorist and counterterrorist.

Hate to be blunt, John, but it does not sound irrational to say that peace must be made through strength.

Do you think in a state of little government power people are less likely to fight? In the absence of a government authority, are people less likely to commit crimes or more likely to do so having no one to punish them?

Man naturally requires a strong entity to keep the peace. The Wild West was not a hippie commune with the lack of government presence. It was far from it.

In any situation where there are multiple groups vying for power and there is no one who is a clear leader, who is clearly the strongest, there will be no peace. This is a basic principle of human existence.

Beautifully, elegantly stated.

This black-and-white, surrender-or-total-victory mentality seems to be a rather inherently dangerous mentality. It certainly doesn't lend itself to the type of nuanced policy that has kept the U.S. the most powerful nation on Earth for the last few decades.

Well we can have black and white, or we can mix it all together and have mud.

 

[Verv]

Strength is not just a case of military might. The best Leaders are not merely those who throw their weight around most effectively, but those who can convince others to follow them.

It is true that the best leaders are not characterized by their power, they are not Genghis Khans. However, the best leaders also are not characterized for their weakness.

The best leaders have a large following but that does not mean that they do not have to fight. You cannot say that Churchill and Roosevelt were poor leaders because they didn't convince Hitler to stop fighting; and Woodrow Wilson in all of his loving kindness was incapable of convincing anyone in Europe that peace was the way.

This black-and-white, surrender-or-total-victory mentality seems to be a rather inherently dangerous mentality. It certainly doesn't lend itself to the type of nuanced policy that has kept the U.S. the most powerful nation on Earth for the last few decades.

There is always a compromise; in order to attain the safety that law provides we agree to not break the law. It is a give and take relationship.

However, if we are given a society that does not have much law right now (like Iraq) we need strength to quell the fighting factions.

 

[ScottishJohn]

It is true that the best leaders are not characterized by their power, they are not Genghis Khans. However, the best leaders also are not characterized for their weakness.

I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to categorise Israel's military as weak. Let's be clear here. I am not saying that war is wrong in every circumstance, or even avoidable in every circumstance, but when you look at an area which is rapidly accelerating towards becoming a war zone it is entirely ridiculous for someone who is engaged in arming several sides of the conflict to talk about 'peace through strength'.

The best leaders have a large following but that does not mean that they do not have to fight. You cannot say that Churchill and Roosevelt were poor leaders because they didn't convince Hitler to stop fighting; and Woodrow Wilson in all of his loving kindness was incapable of convincing anyone in Europe that peace was the way.

You are right. No one could say those things. However in the situation with Hitler every reasonable effort was exhausted before we went to war. THAT is also a sign of a good leader. Someone who recognises the true cost of conflict.

 

[marshlewis]

I have to agree with the others, the difference between democrats and republicans are mostly cosmetic.

Karatecowboy assures us this is because we dont understand US politics. But rather than treat that assurance as it deserves I would instead say, looking at the system from within and looking at it from the outside give much different perspectives.

 

[TheReasoner]

That demonstrates a pretty high level of ignorance of American politics.

[rant]
Oh, I love this
You are so right in assuming that we Euro weenies are brainless fools who just follow the current wherever we may go. We are so inferior to you. I mean, come on. It's not like we have an incredibly varied and unbelievably efficient two-party system like you do. No. We have to make do with a couple of dozen parties in each country. And not only that, but not all of our parties are on the far right either.
Goodness, who are we to talk.
[/rant]

Indeed. And with that level of ignorance it is no wonder Euro-weenies see no difference between terrorist and counterterrorist.

Can you? Honestly? Your nation has directly and indirectly performed acts of terror against civilians in many nations. Your actions abroad have sparked freedom fighters and spurred them on to fight the governments you have set up. Which are usually totalitarian, not democratic. Terrorists you have funded include but are certainly not limited to the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Mujahedeen - who later formed the Taliban. Brazil's Death Squads, who were Latin America's first were trained and started with active US involvement and help. And death squads in other nations followed.
But let's stick to the Middle East where you overthrew Mossadegh and instated the Shah of Iran. You also helped him train the SAVAK - a savage secret police whose methods rival the Gestapo. And while you are American I trust you are not ignorant of the Gestapo - who would remove the skin on the soles of children's feet and force them to walk on glass shards to test their pain tolerance. We're not talking cigarette buds and beating. We're talking about unspeakable cruelties. You're the ones who started the Mujahedeen to help fight the USSR in Afghanistan, training them in guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terror and torture. You're the ones who supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons when his regime was close to falling. And not just conventional weapons, no. You also assisted with WMDs, who he later used to murder 5000 men, women and children. Which you later used as an excuse to invade their nation when he invaded Kuwait. And now, when the former Mujahedeen after this and much more decided to turn around and bite the hand that trained and fed it in the beginning you are surprised, call them terrorists (which is true, but..) and accuse them of hating your freedoms, completely ignoring all the freedoms you helped to take away from them. All the terror you helped subject them to. All the arrogance, corruption and foul play you have used in their nation to secure their wealth as your own... Sure, I am not in any way justifying 9-11, nor m I calling them innocent. But I am saying there's an explanation for this hatred - and that reason is NOT US freedoms. The current US approach is nothing short of barbaric, short sighted and incredibly foolish.
And it is incredible that it hasn't sparked more violent reactions sooner than it did.

Well we can have black and white, or we can mix it all together and have mud.

The world isn't B&W. It isn't even grayscale.
It's in full color. Sure, this makes the world harder to relate to than if it were black and white. But that's the world we live in. It's complex and very very varied.

The US is neither white nor black. It is neither pure good - nor pure evil. And the same can be said for the nations mr. Bush has labeled the 'axis of evil'.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I have to agree with the others, the difference between democrats and republicans are mostly cosmetic.

Karatecowboy assures us this is because we dont understand US politics. But rather than treat that assurance as it deserves I would instead say, looking at the system from within and looking at it from the outside give much different perspectives.

Yes. I think you nailed it. I think it's the distance that makes you see the bigger picture. Plus, being familiar with a whole range of multi-party systems also gives a certain advantage of watching politics through a wider lens, as faith guardian points out, somewhat -ly.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes. I think you nailed it. I think it's the distance that makes you see the bigger picture. Plus, being familiar with a whole range of multi-party systems also gives a certain advantage of watching politics through a wider lens, as faith guardian points out, somewhat -ly.

thank you for the level-headed clarification of my rant.
I do believe so. If you have a two party system in which both parties are on one side of the political spectrum it is very easy to stare oneself partially blind on these. Especially given the size of the nation and how little other nations actually affect the general population of the US. In such a situation I believe it can be very easy indeed to overfocus on the small differences there are between the two parties. And I am not really blaming the general USAian for this. In any situation where one is not subjected to a lot of diversity, what diversity there is can seem so much larger than it really is. Trivialities may seem rather large.
Perfectly natural.
Perfectly unfortunate.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to categorise Israel's military as weak. Let's be clear here. I am not saying that war is wrong in every circumstance, or even avoidable in every circumstance, but when you look at an area which is rapidly accelerating towards becoming a war zone it is entirely ridiculous for someone who is engaged in arming several sides of the conflict to talk about 'peace through strength'.

I think this is precisely the problem with the current US military "strategy" in the occupied Iraq and in the wider Middle East. The US does not actually have a working strategy. All they have is a series of disconnected scenarios that they are testing to see what if anything will work. And so far, none have.

Presently the US is toying with the idea of arming Sunni groups to see if they might turn out to be the bringers of "peace" to the US-occupied Iraq -- the same Sunni groups that in the past have staged attacks against the occupying forces. If that doesn't work either, who knows, the US can very well start arming al-Qaeda for all we know in vein hope they might be able to establish some sort of order in the Iraqi chaos. It does pretty much look like the current US administration is just throwing stuff against the wall as it is to see what, if anything, sticks. The arms sales to Israel, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, the Fatah side of the PA etc. seem to be part of a long line of political miscalculations.

thank you for the level-headed clarification of my rant.

Hey, I'm a #1 fangirl.

 

[KarateCowboy]

[rant]
We are so inferior to you.

No, you are just less knowledgable about our country. I don't see how you can claim to understand a mult-party system when you can't tell the difference between just two parties. And that's a reasonable conclusion.

Can you? Honestly? Your nation has directly and indirectly performed acts of terror against civilians in many nations. Your actions abroad have sparked freedom fighters and spurred them on to fight the governments you have set up.

I have to question the sanity of anyone who looks at militant fundamentalists who want to institute sharia law, have women as property, and execute Jews, Christians, and ex-Muslims and says "freedom fighter".

Which are usually totalitarian, not democratic. Terrorists you have funded include but are certainly not limited to the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Mujahedeen - who later formed the Taliban. Brazil's Death Squads, who were Latin America's first were trained and started with active US involvement and help. And death squads in other nations followed.
But let's stick to the Middle East where you overthrew Mossadegh and instated the Shah of Iran. You also helped him train the SAVAK - a savage secret police whose methods rival the Gestapo. And while you are American I trust you are not ignorant of the Gestapo - who would remove the skin on the soles of children's feet and force them to walk on glass shards to test their pain tolerance. We're not talking cigarette buds and beating. We're talking about unspeakable cruelties. You're the ones who started the Mujahedeen to help fight the USSR in Afghanistan, training them in guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terror and torture. You're the ones who supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons when his regime was close to falling. And not just conventional weapons, no. You also assisted with WMDs, who he later used to murder 5000 men, women and children. Which you later used as an excuse to invade their nation when he invaded Kuwait. And now, when the former Mujahedeen after this and much more decided to turn around and bite the hand that trained and fed it in the beginning you are surprised, call them terrorists (which is true, but..) and accuse them of hating your freedoms, completely ignoring all the freedoms you helped to take away from them. All the terror you helped subject them to. All the arrogance, corruption and foul play you have used in their nation to secure their wealth as your own... Sure, I am not in any way justifying 9-11, nor m I calling them innocent. But I am saying there's an explanation for this hatred - and that reason is NOT US freedoms. The current US approach is nothing short of barbaric, short sighted and incredibly foolish.
And it is incredible that it hasn't sparked more violent reactions sooner than it did.

[/quote]
I see that you find the inconvenience of historical context to be a dispensable nuissance, and hindsight to be a suitable judge. But really, you lost my attention(and respect) when you started calling people who behead innocents and put it on Youtube "freedom fighters".

 

[KomissarSteve]

Well we can have black and white, or we can mix it all together and have mud.

Then you'd better choose to see mud, because that's apparently what the world is.

 

[marshlewis]

No, you are just less knowledgable about our country. I don't see how you can claim to understand a mult-party system when you can't tell the difference between just two parties. And that's a reasonable conclusion. .

All right, what are the major differences between the parties but let me make it more challenging for you. You have to explain it without making reference to secularism, abortion, gun control or gay marriage.

Ok go!