Official: Obama 'disgusted' with Israel

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

No Bob. I don't think the free range peasant is very tasty this time of year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

"Oh very nice, And how'd you get that? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperial dogma which perpetrates the economic and social differences in our society."

"Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help, I'm being repressed! What a giveaway, did you hear that? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me?'

One of my favorites.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Richard

Peasant hunting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R91a...eature=related

Richard

One of my favorites

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by dennisw

As Miquel Cervantes said, "Freedom and honor are two of the most precious gifts the earth holds in its bosom, and a man ought to die for either one." I find honor in supporting Israel. If that makes me a pawn, so be it.

dennisw, I empathize with your stance with neither condemning, nor condoning it. The way of our belief (theology) determines the way of our thinking (philosophy), which determines the way of our living (morality). With enough 'us,' then morality becomes law. Since the heart is deceitful, we may believe in one, yet act another aka. being a fool. In the end, we still have to choose.

[LongWire]

None of this changes that fact that Israel still receives $10Mil from us Daily.

Nor does it change the fact that a lot of Palestinians Sold their valuable land to the Israelis and then want to claim that it was stolen from them.

There is always more than meets the eye......on both sides.

Originally Posted by LongWire

None of this changes that fact that Israel still receives $10Mil from us Daily.

Nor does it change the fact that a lot of Palestinians Sold their valuable land to the Israelis and then want to claim that it was stolen from them.

There is always more than meets the eye......on both sides.

Recall that the agreement to provide foreign aid to Israel has another component. An equivalent support for Egypt.

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Recall that the agreement to provide foreign aid to Israel has another component. An equivalent support for Egypt.

See, Good to know..........Even brokered peace has a price tag, I'm glad that We can Foot the Bill..............

Guess that's why you don't see Egypt hammering us in the press.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by LongWire

Even brokered peace has a price tag, I'm glad that We can Foot the Bill..............

I'm not at all sure we can foot the bill. We're borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia and others, paying them interest, debasing our currency, all so we can give the money to others so they won't fight each other.

An analogy seems to be for a person (Sam?) to go out, get a cash advance on his credit card, and then dole the money out to Joe and Bill so they won't fight. How long can Sam keep doing this?

More pointedly, why should Sam, in the case of the analogy, or the U.S. in real life, actually do this? This is not a rhetorical question.

Let's suppose that Israel is destroyed by massed Arab and Egyptian armies. Should I care? Why should I care? Again, I ask these questions seriously.

Conversely, let's suppose Israel vaporizes Cairo and Damascus. Given that they would probably be airbursts and that the prevailing winds won't dump much fallout on San Antonio, why should I care?

The only thing I can see is that OPEC might use the oil weapon again, as they did in 1973. But oil is fungible, so if they sell to anyone, we will ultimately get some. And their own spending requirements suggest they cannot long withhold the flow.

So...in the spirit of exploring national policy, and with no disrespect to anyone...why are we jumping through hoops to attain peace in the Middle East? Why not tell them to fight to their heart's content and be done with it?

[Slantwire]

Originally Posted by nmap

More pointedly, why should Sam, in the case of the analogy, or the U.S. in real life, actually do this? This is not a rhetorical question.

Let's suppose that Israel is destroyed by massed Arab and Egyptian armies. Should I care? Why should I care?

I've always thought that our support for Israel was due to (at least in large part) a sense of post-Holocaust duty. We felt bad for what they went through, so we pledge to protect them going forward. Or maybe that's my 80s / 90s public schooling talking.

Originally Posted by nmap

Conversely, let's suppose Israel vaporizes Cairo and Damascus. Given that they would probably be airbursts and that the prevailing winds won't dump much fallout on San Antonio, why should I care?

We as a people do tend to care about human rights, and avoidable death. Things like the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, Prague 1968, Tiananmen Square, Rwanda and Darfur bother us. Whatever the government policy, there are a lot of people in Egypt and Syria who just want to go to work and raise their children.

Note: I do think that we were right in bombing Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. And if Israel were attacked and annihilated their aggressor in response, I'd be hard pressed to fault them. But we do prefer to find a solution that doesn't involve massive civilian casualties.

Originally Posted by nmap

The only thing I can see is that OPEC might use the oil weapon again, as they did in 1973. But oil is fungible, so if they sell to anyone, we will ultimately get some. And their own spending requirements suggest they cannot long withhold the flow.

But it would hurt in the interim. And we all know how much fortitude modern American has when it comes to inconvenience. Especially in re-election years.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

I don't have the information needed to agree with the extent of Mr. Penn and his prodigious johnson's claims. But, I agree that desire to forsake America's best interest for any other nation's, is a bad Ju-Ju.

I hope all America has done for Israel commands a level of loyalty and gratitude - if not in their eyes - then certainly in ours.

We've invested a great deal and continue to do so. Didn't we include Israel in the missile defense plan instead of Europe? Aren't we rush ordering bunker busters? I think our separate goals are still in line to necessitate a strategic co-dependence.

Some of my best friends as a kid and now are Jewish. Some of the smartest people I've worked and studied with are Jewish. Ect., ect., ADL disclaimer...

But American Jews should be dissuaded from spying on the US for Israel. Fox News did a report on this in 2001 and the NSA lays it out:Link

"According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of Israel conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the U.S. of any U.S. ally." -General Accounting Office Report

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Recall that the agreement to provide foreign aid to Israel has another component. An equivalent support for Egypt.

Disseminating notions of our total aid to Egypt being equal to Israel is ridiculous.

[nmap]

Let's look at some numbers. LINK to PDF

Egypt, for 2007, was $1,761 million.
Israel, for 2007, was $2,373 million.

So, let's add those together. We get $4,134 million. Or $12.52 per American citizen, assuming 330,000,000 Americans.

OK, so what am I (or you, good reader) getting that makes my $12.52 worthwhile?

While I suppose that the recipients appreciate - and perhaps even need - the money, we have folks in the U.S. that do too. We could instantly create about 91,000 jobs at $45,000 each with the aid to Egypt and Israel. We could hire a lot of police officers or teachers for that. We could train a lot of new doctors if we created full-coverage scholarships. Or, we could get really radical and cut our new debt....

And, if we believe that the U.S. is in fact a force for good in the world, do we not have a moral and ethical duty to maintain the U.S. as a strong nation? How does spending more borrowed money contribute to this goal?

Originally Posted by 6.8SPC_DUMP

Disseminating notions of our total aid to Egypt being equal to Israel is ridiculous.

I did not say equal, I said equivalent. The ratio agreed upon in the treaty that established this arrangement is 3:2.

If you add the money we give to the Palestinians, you may be better informed and have a better perspective.

Had I chosen my words more carefully, perhaps I could have avoided your rebuke. I'll leave it to you, or others to do the arithmetic required for the previous paragraph.

Originally Posted by nmap

OK, so what am I (or you, good reader) getting that makes my $12.52 worthwhile?

While I suppose that the recipients appreciate - and perhaps even need - the money, we have folks in the U.S. that do too. We could instantly create about 91,000 jobs at $45,000 each with the aid to Egypt and Israel. We could hire a lot of police officers or teachers for that. We could train a lot of new doctors if we created full-coverage scholarships. Or, we could get really radical and cut our new debt....

And, if we believe that the U.S. is in fact a force for good in the world, do we not have a moral and ethical duty to maintain the U.S. as a strong nation? How does spending more borrowed money contribute to this goal?

I'm always amused at "false choice" arguments.

And, just what do you think it "costs" a company to employ an individual for $45,000 per year?

[Richard]

I don't have the information needed to agree with the extent of Mr. Penn and his prodigious johnson's claims.

Weelllllll...must not be as prodigious as claimed if the references made to it are posted in the diminutive case.

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I'm always amused at "false choice" arguments.

And, just what do you think it "costs" a company to employ an individual for $45,000 per year?

False choice? I would have termed it an illustration.

The cost is usually about 25% over and above salary. In this instance, the income would represent taxable W-2 income, so there would be some recapture through FICA and Social Security withholding.

However - that's all beside the point. However the money is spent, it would be spent on Americans and their direct needs instead of on foreign governments and citizens. Furthermore, there is the possibility of not spending it at all, thus reducing the deficit.

Any thoughts on why I should be pleased to spend my $12.52 on them instead of on tacos and coffee for me and some friends?

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I did not say equal, I said equivalent. The ratio agreed upon in the treaty that established this arrangement is 3:2.

If you add the money we give to the Palestinians, you may be better informed and have a better perspective.

Had I chosen my words more carefully, perhaps I could have avoided your rebuke. I'll leave it to you, or others to do the arithmetic required for the previous paragraph.

If you told me what an "off the books" nuclear arsenal goes for I'd be better informed and have a better perspective. But even then hard pressed to put the sum in perspective. High hopes for a lasting and mutually beneficial partnership is about all I'm good for; after just a whiff of how crucial "success or failure" could be for both parties.

As for "false choice" arguments - I'm happy to hear any discussion on the hard choices we face today.