Why America supports the Jews/Israel

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=Inquartata;779160]

No place acceptable to them.

You know, they are not children or slaves, to be sent wherever their "betters" decide to put them. They have a say in the matter...just as you have a say in not being sent off to Korea.

You know Inq, I'm sooooo glad I only visit Korea now and again. I would hate to live there.

Here, most people dont know MA. There EVERYBODY knows TKD....most everybody anyways.


Don't you just love a culture whose 'baseball' is a full contact knockout fighting MA?

FF

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

Don't read more into it than necessary. fatfencer says Israel gets too much help from the US, and it's just a big fat target to point out that the person *****ing about this is from a country that only exists (to this very day) because the US was willing to have thousands of its citizens die there, and still has troops that would be under fire if open war was to break out again. For him to whine that somebody else is getting too much from the US is just a joke. Take it at that level.

Don't get me wrong, Jeff, I think Fatfencer, in my humble opinion, comes across as a particularly obnoxious individual. I suspect, however, that he is deliberately trying to cultivate that impression and will no doubt come up with an aggressive and provocative rebuttal to whatever you or I say.

But if you were to ask me for a rational response to the original issue, I would question what America receives, in the post Cold War era, in return for the unique level of aid it gives Israel. I would also have to venture that any reference to Korea is of limited use to answering this question.

It was clearly seen by US government that they had a mission - whether they liked it or not - to push back against global Communism. Not just for our interests (all countries have foreign policies that are intended to further their own interests), but for the entire world. It was a responsibility, not a way of keeping our markets open.

I think this is a question that was addressed by the work of William Appleman Williams and Mel Leffler (the latter who I actually have met at UVA). In sum, it's a difficult question to grapple with, but clearly maintaining the prosperity of post war America did require America to push back global communism. Yes, there is a moral distinction between the US and Soviet political system. Was America, however, equally intent on global hegemony (albeit in a less subtle manner)? Yes, in my view, it probably was.

The notion that American foreign policy in the developing world during the Cold War was not a violation of core 'American values', contradictory, or in any way benign is almost impossible to sustain. That is can be justified on the basis of what was for the most part an exaggerated attitude to the 'communist' threat seems, at best, merely a poorly disguised American exceptionalist interpretation.

i.e. American was intrinsically, by its values and by the nature of the self evident evil of communism, incapable of acting against the interests of humanity and freedom.

Relying on the statement's of American presidents as evidence of America's reluctance to project its power and influence for the sake human kindness, is a bit of a push.

It's not a perfect fit by any means, but Victorian Imperalists thought they were acting in the best interests of democracy.

It's unfashionable to remember this, especially in left circles, but that was a mission that the US took seriously, and sometimes against our own interests, and it's a good thing too.

America did take it seriously. However, when we dissect the American cold war mentality and ideology, it was contradictory, often extreme, and ultimately used to justify all manner of horrific acts around the world. To a large extent, the rhetoric simply justified the policy.

I gues, my own feeling, for what it is worth, is that America shared a lot of the blame for how the Cold War developed and, in many cases, its foreign policy did not occupy the moral high ground in the manner you suggest.

There are plainly more examples of when America acted brutally for its own interest, and when it should have acted (but didn't) because it was not in its interest, than when it acted against its interests.

If it were only about US self-interest, there are quite a few countries that would no longer exist..

I can think of no examples, then or now, when it has been in the US interest to make another country 'not exist'. I'm not an expert in IR theory, but I am uaware of the criteria you suggest.

Sorry if I have meandered off topic..but I don't see the point in engaging with fatfencer on the original topic. Plus, I'm not sure we should have another debate on Israel

[SabreReedfrost]

Nazism was a contagion, not only because they scapegoated the jews and tortured them. But because they killed lots of people indiscriminately and marched over MANY sovereign borders like they were nothing.

Just want to say something about this: The Nazis did not kill indiscriminately. Discrimination was the basis of their killing. They killed those who they deemed to weak to be of use, and those who were not necessarily like them. Had in been indiscriminate, they would have killed each other before they were even a major problem to us.

As for the Israel issue, it seems to me that Israel is justified. Think of it this way: Let's say I(Israel) live next door to Tom(Palestinians). Every morning, Tom comes outside and fires off several rounds at my house. This naturally annoys and gives me cause for concern. I go to the authorities(UN), but they don't see a need to do anything about it, or if I'm really lucky, they airdrop pamphlets on both my house and his. Since they won't do anything about it, I consider taking things into my own hands. I warn Tom that I'm about to strike back and that he needs to get out, and the next morning, when he comes out to shoot at my house, his house blows up. Am I justified? Yes. Tom has been shooting away at me for years. I have the right to retaliate.

[jeff]

Don't get me wrong, Jeff, I think Fatfencer, in my humble opinion, comes across as a particularly obnoxious individual. I suspect, however, that he is deliberately trying to cultivate that impression and will no doubt come up with an aggressive and provocative rebuttal to whatever you or I say.

But if you were to ask me for a rational response to the original issue, I would question what America receives, in the post Cold War era, in return for the unique level of aid it gives Israel. I would also have to venture that any reference to Korea is of limited use to answering this question.

The first paragraph is self-evident For the second: Korea and Israel are clearly not equivalent situations (no more so than Gaza and Falkland Islands, if you recall that one), but if the premise is "the US does or should do things only for direct self interest and therefore should not support Israel because it's giving a lot and getting little" then it's only fair to point out that (a) the premise is false (b) S. Korea has gotten a lot more (human lives) than Israel and we didn't "need" them either, nor did we get anything back from that investment.

I think this is a question that was addressed by the work of William Appleman Williams and Mel Leffler (the latter who I actually have met at UVA). In sum, it's a difficult question to grapple with, but clearly maintaining the prosperity of post war America did require America to push back global communism. Yes, there is a moral distinction between the US and Soviet political system. Was America, however, equally intent on global hegemony (albeit in a less subtle manner)? Yes, in my view, it probably was.

I have no idea who those gentlemen are. Despite not wanting to risk Inq's ire by gainsaying his principle, I think that it is entirely wrong to claim that the direct motivation for pushing back Communism was economic, eg: to ensure our prosperity. That's actually a better fit for the subset of that effort called the Marshall Plan: if we didn't help Europe rebuild we would have nobody to trade with and they would be at greater risk of falling to Communism. The motivation was ideological in the face of an aggressive enslaving dictatorship first and foremost.

Were we seeking hegemony? In my view absolutely not. We wanted to pretty much own South America, but we are and were so different from the classic imperialism you cite. Why did we demobilize 90% of our armed forces immediately after WW II. That's not the mark of a country bent on hegemony. We could have OWNED western Europe and the UK if that had been our goal. Keep the troops in uniform and wave the A-bomb at anyone in our way... But we took the opposite approach.

The notion that American foreign policy in the developing world during the Cold War was not a violation of core 'American values', contradictory, or in any way benign is almost impossible to sustain. That is can be justified on the basis of what was for the most part an exaggerated attitude to the 'communist' threat seems, at best, merely a poorly disguised American exceptionalist interpretation.

Actually it was a violation of our pre-WW II isolationism. I think you deeply misunderstand the mindset of an apocalyptic time. Americans wanted to go home from the war and avoid the rest of the world, and sent everyone to civvie land as soon as possible. After Hitler, and with Stalin and Mao enslaving everyone they could get, the Cold War (and being the only power that could lead the Western side of it) was seen as inevitable and necessary.

Are you really saying that American foreign policies in the Cold War could not be seen as "in any way benign"? I find that amazing, and think that people who lived in Communist countries would reject that out of hand, as I do.

i.e. American was intrinsically, by its values and by the nature of the self evident evil of communism, incapable of acting against the interests of humanity and freedom.

An exaggerated position that I think only the worst zealots and fools believed. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ certainly knew better.

Relying on the statement's of American presidents as evidence of America's reluctance to project its power and influence for the sake human kindness, is a bit of a push.

It's not a perfect fit by any means, but Victorian Imperalists thought they were acting in the best interests of democracy.

I think JFK's statements were a valid representation of the mindset that motivated the US. I reject the leftist, revisionist point of view. Yeah, we were in it only for the money.

BTW, when did Victorian imperialism have anything to do with democracy? The Victorians were going out for the White Man's Burden (ref Kipling) to rule those ignorant dark savages against their will, for their own good. Democracy had nothing to do with it. I reject the equation of the Cold War, in which the US pretty directly "saved the world" - alas, with some nasty things done, and with nobody's hands left clean, as in other wars - with European imperialism, which was the exact opposite.

America did take it seriously. However, when we dissect the American cold war mentality and ideology, it was contradictory, often extreme, and ultimately used to justify all manner of horrific acts around the world. To a large extent, the rhetoric simply justified the policy.

You expect a large country in an effort of this nature to remain pristine and self-consistent in what was universally viewed as a struggle for survival?

I gues, my own feeling, for what it is worth, is that America shared a lot of the blame for how the Cold War developed and, in many cases, its foreign policy did not occupy the moral high ground in the manner you suggest.

I think that it should be taken as a given that all of Europe would have been enslaved by USSR, as a start, and that the US effort is what prevented that. Yeah, we did some nasty stuff in that war. Henry V killed the captives. That's how reality works - there's only white hats and black hats on the kiddy's TV programs.

There are plainly more examples of when America acted brutally for its own interest, and when it should have acted (but didn't) because it was not in its interest, than when it acted against its interests.

Because we always are supposed to act as a self-consistent monolithic entity, being that we are of a single mind and purpose under a single Great Leader?

I can think of no examples, then or now, when it has been in the US interest to make another country 'not exist'. I'm not an expert in IR theory, but I am uaware of the criteria you suggest.)

A misunderstanding. I wasn't saying we had a motive to make any country not exist, I was saying we acted in absence of direct self-interest (and certainly in the cost of blood) to ensure other countries did exist. If we were motivated purely by self interest, there would be no Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Germany (as a non-slave state), or indeed France and the UK going back to WW II. Too bad we couldn't do more for Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, but we were a paper tiger in 1946. Same for China (and too bad Chiang Kai Shek was a turkey) Too bad we supported creeps in South America (especially) and elsewhere - so our hands were not clean, but there is a tremendous difference between 'ends justifying means' at the level we practiced it, and evil means without restraint for evil ends.

We're a democratic country, and while we sometimes do very wrong things, we're simply not in the category of the people we fought in the cold war, nor in the same category as the racist and genocidal Victorian period imperialists.

Sorry if I have meandered off topic..but I don't see the point in engaging with fatfencer on the original topic. Plus, I'm not sure we should have another debate on Israel

Absolutely right on both points!

[pigeonmeister]

S. Korea has gotten a lot more (human lives) than Israel and we didn't "need" them either, nor did we get anything back from that investment.

What I am trying to suggest is that 'investment' was not simply, or in fact mostly, based on the premise that opposing 'global' communism was America's moral duty. The geography of WW2 established US global interests on a scale never seen in its history.

Basically, I think America did feel they got something back. They showed a commitment to preventing a state falling to communism- this demonstrated their 'reliability' which, if deemed absent, they felt would have weakened the resolve of other countries 'resisting' the communist threat. Countries in vital areas...such as Japan.

Moreover, they believed that Japanese reconstruction could only occur if the Japanese economy was linked to markets and raw materials in Southeast Asia and Indochina.

Again, if America was only interested in moral wellbeing of those 'resisting' communism, then they would have probably taken more of an interest in who they supported as their leaders. The leaders of South VN spring to mind.

I have no idea who those gentlemen are. Despite not wanting to risk Inq's ire by gainsaying his principle, I think that it is entirely wrong to claim that the direct motivation for pushing back Communism was economic, eg: to ensure our prosperity. That's actually a better fit for the subset of that effort called the Marshall Plan: if we didn't help Europe rebuild we would have nobody to trade with and they would be at greater risk of falling to Communism. The motivation was ideological in the face of an aggressive enslaving dictatorship first and foremost.

WAW was basically the godfather of the revisionist school of Cold War History in the 1960s. He goes far too far, but essentially made a compelling argument that American foreign policy was not based on spreading freedom or democracy and exaggerated the threat of world domination from the Soviet Union.

He, like many others, point to the fact that cold war ideology was forged at a time when American leaders were not particularly interested even in emancipating millions of its own citizens from an oppressive political system in the South.

Leffler, doesn't go anywhere near as far as WAW, but is currently one of (maybe the) most eminent cold war historians.

His view, which I think has been mostly accepted, was that Soviet actual power "as opposed to potential -- power was tremendously exaggerated by Western estimates". To be fair, I don't know many historians who argue that early National Intelligence of the SU were accurate.

Leffler argues that, yes the SU wanted to dominate Eastern Europe, but given that 40 million Russians had been killed by Western invaders, perhaps this wasn't unsurprising. Certainly no more unacceptable than America's insistence on dominating L America.

In sum, the globalisation of the Cold War was not, after WW2, inevitable and the initial intelligence that assumed the SU was bent on world domination, or even capable of achieving it, were poorly conceived. In effect, America was as responsible for taking the Cold War into the 3rd world. Ideological dogma and rivalry, rather than actual security calculations or rivalry, assumed more importance.

I think this is born out by the fact that even Kennan would eventually reject many of the underlining, but enormously influential, premises he presented.

Your views are basically Orthodox Gaddis.

Why did we demobilize 90% of our armed forces immediately after WW II. That's not the mark of a country bent on hegemony. We could have OWNED western Europe and the UK if that had been our goal. Keep the troops in uniform and wave the A-bomb at anyone in our way... But we took the opposite approach.

Firstly, demobilizing 90% of your armed forces was in your economic interest and, given you had the A-bomb, not necessarily diminishing of your militayr capabilities. Secondly, you ignore the fact that the Soviets demoblised too. Again, it was certainly not in America's interests, economic or political, to own Western Europe. Reconstruction of Western Europe and the rebuilding of Western Germany were enormously positive for us, something we should be grateful for, but it was the cause of action that made the most sense for America.

Actually it was a violation of our pre-WW II isolationism. I think you deeply misunderstand the mindset of an apocalyptic time.

With respect, I think this cuts to the heart of the issue. American strategists simply assumed that it was an apocalyptic situation. What we now know is that Stalin, although a despicable figure, was very wary of doing anything that might actually trigger a war. He might seek opportunities, he might probe, but he clearly and unequivocally wished to avoid a war with the United States (Leffler).

The Cold War (and being the only power that could lead the Western side of it) was seen as inevitable and necessary.

Again, just because it was seen as inevitable doesn't mean it was. Yes, rivalry was inevitable, but the general Soviet threat in the Third World was enormously exaggerated. Actually, during the forties and fifties, and certainly while Stalin was alive, he was very wary of intervening in most places in the Third World. He focused very little attention, for example, on Ho Chi Minh and the communists in Indochina and provided virtually no support to them.

Are you really saying that American foreign policies in the Cold War could not be seen as "in any way benign"? I find that amazing, and think that people who lived in Communist countries would reject that out of hand, as I do.

No, I think that the Cold War would have been better controlled if America had not had a an exagerated and policised understanding of the Soviet threat. I think there were benign elements- but I cannot see a moral high ground to America's policy in the 3rd world.

I suspect that people living in Iran, Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, Vietnam etc would reject much (if not all) of your assumptions.

I think JFK's statements were a valid representation of the mindset that motivated the US. I reject the leftist, revisionist point of view. Yeah, we were in it only for the money.

With respect, you may be a product of your generation. Mindset and actions are nothing like the same. Taking a tough stand rhetorically against the Soviets was popular and deflected Republican criticism- it was political suicide not to do so.

That America was simply only in it for the money, or not, is not an accurate representation of the debate I am trying to have.

Democracy had nothing to do with it.

I don't wish to simply equate US policy with the crude imperalism of the Victorians. However, you simply cannot make a case that democracy had anything to do with US policy in the 3rd world. As long as you were anti-communist, your credentials re democracy or human rights were irrelevant.

US pretty directly "saved the world"

Saved W Europe maybe, again the evidence that the 'world' was in peril was not as clear cut as you assume (and present no evidence for).

I hate to say it, but if you are not aware of WAW or Leffler, then you are probably not aware of how scholarship has critiqued (and not just on the left) the black and white version of history you present.

America's increasing tendency to militarize the Cold War, which preceded the Korean War but then was greatly escalated by it, was an intellectually and analytically flawed policy.

[fatfencer]

Just want to say something about this: The Nazis did not kill indiscriminately. Discrimination was the basis of their killing. They killed those who they deemed to weak to be of use, and those who were not necessarily like them. Had in been indiscriminate, they would have killed each other before they were even a major problem to us.

I guess I meant, the Poles, the jews, The French, Some Russians, the Brits, etc. Pretty indiscriminate if you ask me.

As for the Israel issue, it seems to me that Israel is justified. Think of it this way: Let's say I(Israel) live next door to Tom(Palestinians). Every morning, Tom comes outside and fires off several rounds at my house. This naturally annoys and gives me cause for concern. I go to the authorities(UN), but they don't see a need to do anything about it, or if I'm really lucky, they airdrop pamphlets on both my house and his. Since they won't do anything about it, I consider taking things into my own hands. I warn Tom that I'm about to strike back and that he needs to get out, and the next morning, when he comes out to shoot at my house, his house blows up. Am I justified? Yes. Tom has been shooting away at me for years. I have the right to retaliate.

[/QUOTE]

You know, its not surprising that I look at things from a self-defense perspective. Too much time in MA. I buy the concept of self-defense but only in direct response to an immediate threat. I would buy into the above except for the fact that Israel has done its share to prolong the war rather than end it quickly. If you shoot my house, I call the police while grabbing my own gun. I adjust my scope....

When war DOESN'T end quickly, more people suffer. When war ends quickly, the losing party either doesnt exist or becomes a part of the winning part. When wars don't end and generations of people are exposed to hatred, who wins? Wars are criminal enough... but a protracted one cannot be the fault of one party.

It's best to, in the context of defending one's borders, make an example of the aggressive party so that no one tries it again. Look at America. Everyone ****s with us now since we fight wars while being afraid to win them.

As for the direction of the thread, well the factoid/historical rhetoric stuff has taken over. I tend to respond less to what people write and more to the angst behind it. I find the angst highly offensive and enjoy responding to it like for like. People who are pro-jew tend to have a lot of knee-jerk vent sauce to those who would even suggest that its not in our best interest as a nation-state to support israel. You can just feel the "What about the Holocaust!!" oozing out of every word. It's definitely not PC or envogue to remind people that more Russians died in WW2, or that theres no financial or substantive geo-political gain(don't give me that friend in the region bull****e.. what functional military use have they been to us in the last 15 years? 30 years?). It's certainly not PC to remind people that regardless of your origin, you have a solemn obligation to put this country's needs before your own religious or ethnic leanings.

So I guess I have a big problem with sending billions to the jews while we have such a crappy educational system or that when disaster strikes we have to deal with no water at the Superdome. We're like a fat cow that feeds the world from our bloated nipples while our own calves starve from lack of attention and genuine consideration. Mention that its time to trim the fat to a culture that has plenty of money and they scream racist betrayal. "But don't you remember the Diaspora????"

Am I REALLY the only one here thick-skinned and uncouth enough to ask How much is enough? I can see Inq and jeff jumping up and down screaming Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

jews are also a very insular culture that do little to financially give back to the community that surrounds them. At least I have never seen it. They do send tonnages of money back to zion and they get our government to do likewise. Oddly, we supplement Egypt too...equally crappy.

I also have a problem with driving thru North Dakota and seeing an Arab run Super 8 motel flying our flag upside down at half mast while flying a Muslim Country's flag correctly immediately after 9/11!!!! It was all I could do to keep driving. Free speech, free speech... I had to mutter that mantra for 500 miles just to keep from tying that som***** up and greasing his whole body with bacon fat. I remember driving thru Wyoming that year and stopping at a diner with my very Asian uncle. We were told unceremoniously that they don't serve 'our kind' and that we 'best get a move on'. Nothing worse than an undereducated, un-cosmopolitan, white waitress and her horde of sympathetic, ready to do battle to save White-land, customers. Oh how I love America despite itself!!!!

Even if it were a temporary thing, to stop feeding the world for awhile while we heal....theres wisdom in remembering that ground needs to lie fallow for a season.

FF

PS: Jeff, yes that would mean that i'd like us to pull out of Korea...oh wait.. they are important. Still, if I had my 'druthers, out we'd be.

[I_luv_saber]

I guess I meant, the Poles, the jews, The French, Some Russians, the Brits, etc. Pretty indiscriminate if you ask me.

But the core of their mission was not necessarily to kill those people. They were casualties of war. The killing of the Jews, as a people, was their true mission and holds a new level of disgust.

You know, its not surprising that I look at things from a self-defense perspective. Too much time in MA. I buy the concept of self-defense but only in direct response to an immediate threat. I would buy into the above except for the fact that Israel has done its share to prolong the war rather than end it quickly. If you shoot my house, I call the police while grabbing my own gun. I adjust my scope....

As was pointed out, the cops have been called... but have decided not to show up. Tom's still shooting...

As for the direction of the thread, well the factoid/historical rhetoric stuff has taken over.

Yeah... it's called reason. Damn shame.

I tend to respond less to what people write and more to the angst behind it.

It's quite obvious you argue without reason and truly listening to others, you simply argue for the sake of arguing, which is ridiculous. This forum is generally a place to debate, not to blather on with mindless emotional arguing.

People who are pro-jew tend to have a lot of knee-jerk vent sauce to those who would even suggest that its not in our best interest as a nation-state to support israel.

See, this is the blatant racism that people are talking about (psst, by the way, Israel is a country (as you said a proper place) that should be capitalized as well). What the hell does "pro-jew" mean? That doesn't even make sense. Pro-Israel, I follow you, but "pro-jew" is a rather silly thing to say. I don't think many people are pushing for the Jewish people over anyone else.

All of which is a different subject than should we support Israel. Just because I think we should be supporting Israel, doesn't mean it's some Freudian racist thing.

As far as discussion regarding this subject, there is already a thread on that which you can refer to, I'm simply pointing out the idiocy in your saying because you support Israel you must be pushing for the Jews as a people.

You can just feel the "What about the Holocaust!!" oozing out of every word. It's definitely not PC or envogue to remind people that more Russians died in WW2, or that theres no financial or substantive geo-political gain(don't give me that friend in the region bull****e.. what functional military use have they been to us in the last 15 years? 30 years?). It's certainly not PC to remind people that regardless of your origin, you have a solemn obligation to put this country's needs before your own religious or ethnic leanings.

Firstly, again, just because one supports Israel does not mean it is some guilt or pity from the Holocaust (funny you caps that but not "jew"... Freud, to aisle 3!). The fact that you see it as such shows more, I think.

Secondly, I do agree that the suffer received by the Russian people is far, far too understated most times. But you must understand the underlying evil of targeting an entire people, simply because they are a people, do you not? It is an entirely different realm of bad.

As far as the support for Israel question, again, this was already addressed in a previous thread. But to blame some mass Jewish conspiracy is idiotic to the point of saying the Holocaust itself was either a fraud or exaggerated!

So I guess I have a big problem with sending billions to the jews while we have such a crappy educational system or that when disaster strikes we have to deal with no water at the Superdome. We're like a fat cow that feeds the world from our bloated nipples while our own calves starve from lack of attention and genuine consideration. Mention that its time to trim the fat to a culture that has plenty of money and they scream racist betrayal. "But don't you remember the Diaspora????"

As has been pointed out to you, people are not taking umbrage to that fact you wish a more isolationist policy. Hell, to a point, I think we should too. The thing is, you aren't showing this scrutiny to all we give aid to (and believe you me, we dose out a helluva lot more than that around the world), simply then dern jews!

Racism is being called because you are holding the Jews to a higher standard than you are holding others and claiming some vast Jewish conspiracy (do they all have some big meeting on Fridays that I don't know about?), them crying that people are pulling a race card. Back your position up with examples of other countries, and either drop this stupid idea of a Jewish conspiracy or back it up with evidence, and maybe people will begin to take you seriously rather than treat you like the troll you are.

Am I REALLY the only one here thick-skinned and uncouth enough to ask How much is enough? I can see Inq and jeff jumping up and down screaming Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

I'll say we should be pulling back on the foreign aid somewhat. But in these modern times, to expect a total revert to isolationism is economic suicide (not to mention simply not practical or healthy in other means).

jews are also a very insular culture that do little to financially give back to the community that surrounds them. At least I have never seen it. They do send tonnages of money back to zion and they get our government to do likewise. Oddly, we supplement Egypt too...equally crappy.

Another racist stereotype with no evidence to back up a ludicrous statement. Remind me... why is it no one is taking you seriously again...?

Sit down.

[jeff]

Darned 10,000 limit.. Tried to snip to fit, but it didn't. Part 1 of 2

What I am trying to suggest is that 'investment' was not simply, or in fact mostly, based on the premise that opposing 'global' communism was America's moral duty. The geography of WW2 established US global interests on a scale never seen in its history.

Surely not geography. We were as distant from Europe and Asia in 1948 as we were in 1938 I doubt I'll succeed in convincing you of this - we did see opposing Communism as a moral and essential duty. I pulled out my Oxford History of the United States (which you'll agree isn't automatically biased to the US) and Halberstam's The Fifties to review the thought and private memos of our government leaders, and of the public mood. It is a mistake to say "it's all about the US". Churchill popularized the phrase "the Iron Curtain". What distinguished the US is that we were the only undamaged western power with the ability and will to strongly oppose Stalinism and Maoism.

Basically, I think America did feel they got something back. They showed a commitment to preventing a state falling to communism- this demonstrated their 'reliability' which, if deemed absent, they felt would have weakened the resolve of other countries 'resisting' the communist threat. Countries in vital areas...such as Japan.

Moreover, they believed that Japanese reconstruction could only occur if the Japanese economy was linked to markets and raw materials in Southeast Asia and Indochina.

Neither of these is "getting something back" for our parochial interests. The examples you claim are primarily about saving another country's bacon and only indirectly about ours. If it weren't a distraction I'd ask for a citation regarding markets and raw materials for Japanese business...

Again, if America was only interested in moral wellbeing of those 'resisting' communism, then they would have probably taken more of an interest in who they supported as their leaders. The leaders of South VN spring to mind.

That is a simplistic, starting with "only interested". Throughout the course of history governments and leaders have made deals with bastards in the service of a bigger problem or mutual threat. The left revisionist consequence of not thinking global Communism was a real threat is to make every instance where we supported bastards uniformly corrupt. That's a mistake.

I opposed supporting the leaders of South Vietnam before you were born, and I was against cozying up with other creeps as well. Sometimes it's the wrong thing to do - both morally and pragmatically but even Good Guys associate with SOBs. Welcome to the real world in which there are shades of gray.

Churchill said if Hitler were to invade Hell he would promptly sign a pact with the Devil.

WAW was basically the godfather of the revisionist school of Cold War History in the 1960s. He goes far too far, but essentially made a compelling argument that American foreign policy was not based on spreading freedom or democracy and exaggerated the threat of world domination from the Soviet Union.

Not compelling to me. To take that position after what happened in Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states, and the purges and police state within the USSR. is moronic. You yourself say he goes too far - why use his judgment then?

I see no reason to give undue value to leftist revisionist historians. The left has always been wrong: supporting Stalin before and even after the nature of Stalinism was revealed, and unable to distinguish morally between the US and the USSR even in 1956 when tanks were rolling into Hungary. I've heard and read them for decades. A leftist, to this very day, is going to find it hard to admit that Communism threatened the world and was responsible for the deaths and enslavement of millions. The bias discounts any valid motivation to oppose Communism - only self-interest could be left. I dismiss them categorically.

He, like many others, point to the fact that cold war ideology was forged at a time when American leaders were not particularly interested even in emancipating millions of its own citizens from an oppressive political system in the South.

He parrots propaganda from the Stalin and Khrushchev regimes. Racial prejudice is a deep stain on my country but in no way invalidates the struggles against fascism or Communism. Two entirely different things. Or would you take the stance that UK bigotry and classism made its fight against Hitler morally unjust?

Leffler, doesn't go anywhere near as far as WAW, but is currently one of (maybe the) most eminent cold war historians.

His view, which I think has been mostly accepted, was that Soviet actual power "as opposed to potential -- power was tremendously exaggerated by Western estimates". To be fair, I don't know many historians who argue that early National Intelligence of the SU were accurate.

We did not have good intelligence. When Eisenhower offered Khrushchev a mutual "open skies" program so each country could see what the other was up to, Nikita bluntly rejected it as a US attempt at espionage. US skies were already open to scrutiny. Eisenhower's understanding of the USSR was more nuanced than is sometimes thought, including knowing that Communism wasn't monolithic and that the USSR had internal conflicts, fears and problems. but he still had to cope with what was obviously a grave threat.

Leffler argues that, yes the SU wanted to dominate Eastern Europe, but given that 40 million Russians had been killed by Western invaders, perhaps this wasn't unsurprising. Certainly no more unacceptable than America's insistence on dominating L America.

The Soviet desire for dominated buffer states is well known but only part of the story, as they went much further than that in enslaving their own and countries like Hungary and Estonia that represented no threat to them. I absolutely reject "Certainly no more unacceptable". The Soviets instituted police states and purged opposition orders of magnitude beyond anything we did. The Left's inability to perceive a difference between the USSR and the West (esp. the US) is a sign of blindness

[jeff]

part 2 of 2

In sum, the globalisation of the Cold War was not, after WW2, inevitable and the initial intelligence that assumed the SU was bent on world domination, or even capable of achieving it, were poorly conceived. In effect, America was as responsible for taking the Cold War into the 3rd world. Ideological dogma and rivalry, rather than actual security calculations or rivalry, assumed more importance.

I think this is born out by the fact that even Kennan would eventually reject many of the underlining, but enormously influential, premises he presented.

Your views are basically Orthodox Gaddis.

Not even "Reform Gaddis"?

Does that make him or me wrong by definition?

Nice hindsight to look back and say that the SU wasn't going for world domination, or that what they had done to Eastern Europe wasn't enough of a basis for the Cold War.

To say that the US was responsible for the Cold War going to the 3rd world is false. The SU wasn't in Africa and Asia directly or via proxies? (where were China and Korea?) or Mideast? remember they threatened to send paratrooper into the Suez to squash Eden's dumb idea...

Of course ideology was central to this. The very strongly held belief by many in the US was and is that the USSR intended as much of world domination as they could get - reflected by their rhetoric and actions around the world.

Years later in our cozy chairs we can say how the risks were exaggerated, but that's merely comfortable hindsight after the crisis is over.

Firstly, demobilizing 90% of your armed forces was in your economic interest and, given you had the A-bomb, not necessarily diminishing of your militayr capabilities.

In our economic interests to be sure, but this doesn't refute my point that we weren't bent on military hegemony. If we were going to do as the Soviets or other imperialists had done, we would have kept up our conventional forces to enforce our rule throughout the world. If we had that desire, we would have kept London, Paris, Tokyo, Rome, etc...

We did not use the nukes, thank God, and they were viewed as a last resort for apocalypse. Nutjobs that wanted to use it as a war tactic did not set policy. So, our demobilization weakened our conventional forces, which was what we would have needed to dominate the world as the Soviets tried.

Secondly, you ignore the fact that the Soviets demoblised too.

Did they? When? How much? Did we know it as a sure thing? Were they an open society that published their military strength? We could safely afford to just take a guess at it?

Again, it was certainly not in America's interests, economic or political, to own Western Europe. Reconstruction of Western Europe and the rebuilding of Western Germany were enormously positive for us, something we should be grateful for, but it was the cause of action that made the most sense for America.

I agree, but other countries might have felt they were owed a lot, and kept what they felt like owning. Had we felt that way, as the Soviets clearly did in the areas they controlled, things would have gone differently. We wanted there to be free nations to interact with, not puppet states we owned. This is part of what differentiates us from the USSR that is so often forgotten by the left.

American strategists simply assumed that it was an apocalyptic situation. What we now know is that Stalin, although a despicable figure, was very wary of doing anything that might actually trigger a war...

My emphasis added.

We did not and could not know. During the 50s we already knew about mass purges in USSR and China's willingness to kill as many of its own people as it felt necessary. We could not just assume that they wouldn't be willing to do that in war again - where they had previously shown an uncapped willingness to sacrifice their own for military purposes.

...rivalry was inevitable, but the general Soviet threat in the Third World was enormously exaggerated. Actually, during the forties and fifties, and certainly while Stalin was alive, he was very wary of intervening in most places in the Third World. He focused very little attention, for example, on Ho Chi Minh and the communists in Indochina ...

He certainly paid a lot of attention to North Korea. Was he supposed to have been everywhere all the time? Even Sauron couldn't do that!

Cold War would have been better controlled if America had not had a an exagerated and policised understanding of the Soviet threat. I think there were benign elements- but I cannot see a moral high ground to America's policy in the 3rd world.

I suspect that people living in Iran, Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, Vietnam etc would reject much (if not all) of your assumptions.

I am certain that there are some people in those countries - esp Cambodia and Vietnam that wish we were successful there. Maybe there wouldn't have been a Khmer Rouge... Of course, a lot of people who were on the losing side fled from those countries - I've met Iranians and Vietnamese who wish we had done a lot more then

With respect, you may be a product of your generation. Mindset and actions are nothing like the same. Taking a tough stand rhetorically against the Soviets was popular and deflected Republican criticism- it was political suicide not to do so.

The generational advantages is all mine.

I know the mindset of the time much more accurately. Frankly, youngsters don't understand the way it was before the Soviet bloc collapsed - the feeling of a real and existential threat, and since the last 8 years we had a turkey President, young folk today can't even imagine the US being the leader of the west's foreign policy.

I assure you that the stand against the Soviets was was broadly supported in the US - and in the UK and Europe as well except among the left-leaning bien pensants. If you think this was a Republican item then you completely misunderstand the mindset. Not just the US mindset: Europe (except for the lefties) was scared silly by the Soviets and looked to the US to keep them safe.

I don't wish to simply equate US policy with the crude imperalism of the Victorians. However, you simply cannot make a case that democracy had anything to do with US policy in the 3rd world. As long as you were anti-communist, your credentials re democracy or human rights were irrelevant.

See again Churchill's devil comment.

In the Cold War we were fending off an aggressive, enslaving enemy. The Victorian imperialists were the aggressive, enslaving party. That's why I really reject comparisons of US to the European imperialists. They were much much much worse - and IMO their great grandchildren like to claim otherwise to gain an unearned moral superiority.

Saved W Europe maybe, again the evidence that the 'world' was in peril was not as clear cut as you assume (and present no evidence for)..if you are not aware of WAW or Leffler, then you are probably not aware of how scholarship has critiqued (and not just on the left) the black and white version of history you present....

No "maybe" about saving W Europe. Fact. Also S. Korea (how we got to this chat), Taiwan, Japan...

I don't feel obligated to know the names of left leaning revisionists. They aren't the first or last of that category.

Not meaning to say it's you (as you've made comments showing otherwise) but there's a left leaning class that would rather kill itself than admit that without the US fighting Communism the world would have been enslaved. They'd rather focus on what we did wrong than the larger things we did right.

[keith]

In the Cold War we were fending off an aggressive, enslaving enemy. The Victorian imperialists were the aggressive, enslaving party. That's why I really reject comparisons of US to the European imperialists. They were much much much worse - and IMO their great grandchildren like to claim otherwise to gain an unearned moral superiority.

Well if we are going to play historical revisionism.

Enslaving European Imperialism (EEI?) was simply about extending spheres of influence and securing strategic access to sea lanes and other points of commercial traffic. The Opium wars have been run differently if it had all fallen under the jurisdiction of the WTO.

There is also a conceit about what EEI achieved, generally all it achieved where client states - there was never sufficient man power, or economic power, to actually form an 'empire'. Much of EEI was enforced by gunboat diplomacy, piss us off and we will send a few thousand crack troops to teach you a quick lesson. Of course it didn't always work that way and some of the ongoing entanglements of EEI were what eventually brought the model down.

The arguement against Current Western Imperialism* (CWI?) is that while we claim to be different from EEI, and certainly use different tools, the result in the proxy states is equivalent. We do not use our economic and military superiority for any good other than our own.

As to saving Europe, you cashed those chips, the quid pro quo for your 'saving' Europe was the agreement that in the first instance world war III would be fought in Europe. Herds of tanks sweeping gracefully across the low countries with limited thermonuclear in the European theatre as a back up. All that fun stuff .



*criticism of CWI is directed at all of the Western world. Although only americans get worked up by it.

[jeff]

Ooh, great thread drift - I'm very impressed!

Historical revisionism - a game any number can play!

Yeah, Much EEP was about extending spheres of influence and gaining access to sea lanes (eg: Russians and a cold water port; pre WW I Germany in the North; GB and France (iirc) marching at 90 degree angles in Africa). Interestingly, the Kaiser openly said he wanted colonies because the other Big Boys had 'em, so he wanted them to. But he was a bit bonkers, withered arm and all.

I think India, China, and the Caribbean demonstrate "thin provisioning" models of EEI. Sure, there weren't enough imperialists to have them on every street corner, but make object lessons of those that object forcefully to your presence, and you may be able to create a native bureaucracy to implement your will. Is that really all that different from the Classic Period Imperialism (CPI?) of the Romans? How about the American colonies? Same model or different? Enquiring minds want to know.

The problem with CWP seems to be that some would like to maintain that only the Yanks (and I almost forgot) the Israeli's practice it, while all the other fine upstanding people wave their clean hands in dismay and deny they do any such thing themselves any more.

Hm, I don't know if WW III is guaranteed to start in Europe. Well, there's precedent, as Numbers I and II started there, so it would be continuing a tradition (and would probably be the last of its line). I think that the dispersal of powerful weapons all around the world now makes it conceivable that the Big One could start just about anywhere.

[Fencer X and Y]

Continuing with the thread drift...
If I had to guess where WWIII could start it would be Pakistan/India. Both are nuclear powers and if a major war should start spreading from there the alliances are split pretty evenly (if sides had to be chosen) along the Western-Eastern world lines.

[fatfencer]

I_luv_saber;780048]But the core of their mission was not necessarily to kill those people. They were casualties of war. The killing of the Jews, as a people, was their true mission and holds a new level of disgust.

I hear what you are saying, I truly do. But the extermination of the jews, was, IMHO, a means NOT an end to galvanize the Germans into mobilizing their tattered shambles of a country into something worthy of history.

Had they succeeded, they would have been the first one world government. I think complete and utter world domination of the 'civilized' world was their aim. The jews? Scapegoated for their stereotypical role in history as money-launderers, usurers...people of ethnicity, etc. It was a perfect storm of sorts. Nazis used the depression there as a cause, the extermination of the jews as their means for a horrific end.

Had there been a significant population of successful blacks in the area it'd be the blacks shouting 'holocaust' to the hills.

I have to disagree on the whole factoid vs what you call 'arguing to argue'. Far more important to me is the intention behind a thing and not the factoid or statistic wielded. I can find any piece of written fiction from a journalist and call it 'evidence'. It will say what I want it to say. Trust me. The internet is chock full. In short, it's NOT 'reason' its a lack of reason covered up by facts. Not to say though that it has been true for the whole of the thread, just some of it.

You made this lovely comment about jews holding secret meetings.... I didnt say they were the Masons. I said they are jews.

Admittedly I do use a great deal of toilet humor and stereotype in this thread. The reason is stereotypes are quite true, and they are true prima facie. In fact thats what makes them so useful here. Stereotypes are a great way to argue in limited settings like internet forums because they are true. Not true for EVERYBODY, but generally true. In a way they are like self-referencing evidence. If we wish to take the argumentation to a more scholarly level then perhaps we should all put links in of newspaper clippings and opinionated scholarly writings from 'experts' as evidence. Note, no one does this. Stereotypes are true on face and everyone is painfully aware of their validity. Again, we can take it up a notch... but we are ALL lazy. Especially Inq. he doesn't argue at all. he just shouts 'fallacy' from the hills and says 'I don't have to deal with it cuz its not empirically true all the time.'

Part of the problem is that people can't separate what is completely one dimensionally, simplistically true, from something they wish wasn't true at all.

Toilet humor??? Well, I have a weakness for racial-based comedy despite this PC audience because I genuinely find it funny. Anyone remember Eddie Murphy's Himeytown? Classic. I'm digressing though.

Also, you mentioned that I like to argue. Duh!!! Why else do I post here?

Finally you made an interesting comment on the fact that I hold jews to a higher standard despite poor arguments made to the tune that we support other countries as well. Furthermore you equate isolationism with suicide.

Well I'm not advocating isolationism, just a moratorium on gifts, ESPECIALLY to countries that, if they wish to exist, should do so on their own, UNLESS there is legitimate strategic benefit that outweighs the expenditure. We can still trade with the world, just stop giving them money. Besides, the jews, whose successful lobby created Zion in the first place has plenty of money. Let them spend their OWN!

BTW: Jeff contrasting israel with Korea is like Dildos and Apples... israel, other than the mere mention that we are 'friends', does so little for us militarily, strategically, geopolitically. Korea....well thats been well covered by those who watch lots of History Channel.

Incidentally, I make free, glib connections between israel and 'the jews' due to its historical birth and the reasons behind it. They are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.

Finally, what's with this Freud thing? I'm not capitalizing jews and israel just because it bugs the bleep out of some of you. I freely admit I'm doing it purposely. People read into what was originally a typo and start shouting to the hills 'Anti Semite'. So I ran with it. Why do I care what the jews think? Or any group for that matter. And again, I do hold the jews to a higher standard since their lobby is unusually successful despite the small population it represents, their pull with the Christian Right despite their contrary-to Christianity religious views, the questionable worth of israel as an 'ally' in the Middle East.

'Ally' does not mean 'freeloader'.

Fatfencer

PS: I am not the only one. 30 secs on Google shows that some jews, like Gilad, a former IDF officer and British Citizen, think as I do. Too bad he isn't in power. Perhaps we'd have a more ethical, humane, cheaper on the US budget 'ally'. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/0...g-idf-sadists/

[fatfencer]

I_luv_saber;780048]

It's quite obvious you argue without reason and truly listening to others, you simply argue for the sake of arguing, which is ridiculous. This forum is generally a place to debate, not to blather on with mindless emotional arguing.

See below. I've included a great deal of evidence to support what I've always known to be factually true about jews, even if you wish to deny it. Within the context of this arg., you are going to regret saying the above. How do you say mindless patsy in Yiddish? Is it Schmuck!!??

See, this is the blatant racism that people are talking about (psst, by the way, Israel is a country (as you said a proper place) that should be capitalized as well). What the hell does "pro-jew" mean? That doesn't even make sense. Pro-Israel, I follow you, but "pro-jew" is a rather silly thing to say. I don't think many people are pushing for the Jewish people over anyone else.

They are one and the same. Why wouldnt they be? Who else lives there that the jews(the israelis if you wish to be anally technical) haven't or arent actively trying to remove? Nobody.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/0...g-idf-sadists/
Clearly, cruelty is deeply rooted in Israeli society. It may take two to tango, but apparently it doesn’t take more than two Israeli soldiers to prove to us all what Israel and the Jewish national revival is all about.

Seemingly, barbarism is deeply engraved within Israeli society and the Hebraic culture. It shouldn’t take us by surprise. It was that very barbarism that led to the uprooting of the Palestinian population in 1948. It is a barbarism that is fuelled by a complete dismissal of Otherness that has been maintaining Israel and Zionism since then.

As far as discussion regarding this subject, there is already a thread on that which you can refer to, I'm simply pointing out the idiocy in your saying because you support Israel you must be pushing for the Jews as a people.

Why is this??? Israel was founded under the tent of Zionism. It pervades the whole of the thing. Zionism contends that a jew is a citizen of jewry and Israel(there I capitalized it for you) first and foremost, even at the expense of the country they currently live in.

Firstly, again, just because one supports Israel does not mean it is some guilt or pity from the Holocaust (funny you caps that but not "jew"... Freud, to aisle 3!). The fact that you see it as such shows more, I think.

What would you call it then? It is happening despite your denial.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html
The BBC wrote on their website:
Jewish American historian Norman Finkelstein argues in his explosive new book, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" that Holocaust remembrance has been exploited by the Jewish establishment.
In his book he contends that a greater threat to the memory of the Holocaust than Holocaust deniers is what he calls 'The Holocaust Industry'.

He accuses those who exploit the Holocaust of telling lies and of naked greed. He argues that the ruthless industrialisation of the Holocaust has encouraged the rebirth of anti-semitism in Europe and the United States.

Secondly, I do agree that the suffer received by the Russian people is far, far too understated most times. But you must understand the underlying evil of targeting an entire people, simply because they are a people, do you not? It is an entirely different realm of bad.

Stalin targeted them because they were bad in his eyes. The war targeted them because they staffed the front lines. Death is death. Who and why are important, but as I've pointed out earlier you manage to miss the strategic importance of targeting the jews. Hitler wanted a victim. He chose a prominent minority with money. Call them jews, chinese, etc. I call them unfortunate victims with a good PR campaign.

As far as the support for Israel question, again, this was already addressed in a previous thread. But to blame some mass Jewish conspiracy is idiotic to the point of saying the Holocaust itself was either a fraud or exaggerated!

The holocaust is a tragic event as I have said many times throughout this thread. Yet I do believe the jews lobby via pity, quite successfully, for what was done to them by Germany. Germany owes them money. We don't. Why are taxpayer dollars being lobbied for by AIPAC and others? Cuz they have their rich hand out. I wonder how much Germany gives to the jews....

As has been pointed out to you, people are not taking umbrage to that fact you wish a more isolationist policy. Hell, to a point, I think we should too. The thing is, you aren't showing this scrutiny to all we give aid to (and believe you me, we dose out a helluva lot more than that around the world), simply then dern jews!

It has been pointed out that those countries have a greater strategic worth than israel.

Another racist stereotype with no evidence to back up a ludicrous statement. Remind me... why is it no one is taking you seriously again...?

you wrote this in response to the fact I said jews give **** tons of money to Israel.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articl...673045,00.html

Here's a seemingly non-partisan Israeli site that states you know little of world affairs and how the jews handle their money...heres a quote..

Orly Azulay Published: 02.17.09, 10:45 / Israel Jewish Scene

Prominent Jewish lecturers from Cornell, Berkley, NYC, Wisconsin and Boston universities have already signed it, as well as major Jewish philanthropists.
"The State of Israel depends on the political, financial and moral support of American Jews," said Tenenbaum.

You are a bleeping moron. Now get off your keyboard and go read something.

PS: Here's a quote from the London Review of Books, a random site not seemingly disposed to one line of thinking or another about Israel. It says exactly what I say...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Here's another great piece on how the jews used the same methods to expel Arabs during the creation of Israel as was used UPON THEM during WW2
http://en.timeturk.com/John-Pilger-H...36-yazisi.html

PPS: A further quik search of google shows that only as a result of the recent downturn have the Jews decided by and large to start cutting back on their own support to Israel. If their own kind is cutting back WHY SHOULDN'T THE TYPICAL AMERICAN CITIZEN ARGUE THE SAME ABOUT their TAXDOLLARS!!!! (How's that for capital letters you schmucks)...or should I say...How decidedly jewish of them????

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1028064.html
For U.S. Jewish groups, crisis means less in donations, more needy

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz U.S. Correspondent

Tags: Israel News, Financial crisis

As the U.S. economic crisis mounts, American Jewish organizations face both a growing need for their services at home and declining contributions. The result is likely to be a sharp drop in donations to overseas projects, including in Israel.

The New York Jewish Federation has already announced that in order to service the ballooning needs of its own community, it will dip into its reserves - a last resort for emergencies. The last time it utilized its reserves was to help residents of northern Israel during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

"This is a completely new situation for us," said Susie Gelman, chairwoman of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington. "My 88-year-old father remembers what happened during the 1930s, but I've never in my life experienced such a crisis."
Advertisement

She continued, "We're not forgetting Israel, certainly not. But we have a new situation now, and we also need to take care of ourselves, and our means are not unlimited."

So why oh why am I an Anti-semite when I argue the American taxpayer should lobby for the same? (cuz I didn't capitalize "jew".....)

Why should we support Israel when their own are cutting back??? 3 billion a year would be great for our failing school system.

[I_luv_saber]

I hear what you are saying, I truly do. But the extermination of the jews, was, IMHO, a means NOT an end to galvanize the Germans into mobilizing their tattered shambles of a country into something worthy of history.

While I agree that the end goal of the Nazis was indeed world domination, I do not agree that the Jews were simply a method to rally the people into it. Hitler hated the Jewish people and used his power to push that personal bit of hatred.

Had there been a significant population of successful blacks in the area it'd be the blacks shouting 'holocaust' to the hills.

Seeing as they sought an all-Aryan club, I can see that they would have pushed against blacks harder than the Jews if they were the predominate people. But I still think Hitler's personal hatred of the Jews would have him still subjecting any Jewish people he could get his hands on to the Holocaust. This was a personal thing for him, IMHO.

I have to disagree on the whole factoid vs what you call 'arguing to argue'. Far more important to me is the intention behind a thing and not the factoid or statistic wielded. I can find any piece of written fiction from a journalist and call it 'evidence'. It will say what I want it to say. Trust me. The internet is chock full. In short, it's NOT 'reason' its a lack of reason covered up by facts. Not to say though that it has been true for the whole of the thread, just some of it.

Well, ANY evidence can be untrue, but we do take a certain amount of salt with it since this is an internet forum. Generally though, when you are the one putting forth a point, especially ones considered pretty wild ones to the general community, you put forth something to back it up!

You made this lovely comment about jews holding secret meetings.... I didnt say they were the Masons. I said they are jews.

If there is indeed some mass Jewish lobby dictating the policy of the US, I'm assuming they must organize in some way. Perhaps they are just internet meetings?

Admittedly I do use a great deal of toilet humor and stereotype in this thread. The reason is stereotypes are quite true, and they are true prima facie. In fact thats what makes them so useful here. Stereotypes are a great way to argue in limited settings like internet forums because they are true. Not true for EVERYBODY, but generally true. In a way they are like self-referencing evidence.

The big problem being, not everyone assumes this to be true as you do, myself being one of them. IMHO, assuming a stereotype is true... "since you are Jewish you probably are A and B", that is a definition of racism! You pre-judge a person based on their race!

If we wish to take the argumentation to a more scholarly level then perhaps we should all put links in of newspaper clippings and opinionated scholarly writings from 'experts' as evidence. Note, no one does this.

You aren't terribly familiar with this area of the board then, my friend. Generally we do put forth something, something to provide at least vague evidence to any point that not everyone takes as self-evident. Again, the more oddball the statement, the more you have to back it up with something, else no when will take you seriously.

Stereotypes are true on face and everyone is painfully aware of their validity. Again, we can take it up a notch... but we are ALL lazy. Especially Inq. he doesn't argue at all. he just shouts 'fallacy' from the hills and says 'I don't have to deal with it cuz its not empirically true all the time.'

I don't really want to, but if you'd like, I can go through these forums and pull PAGES of at least vague evidence provided by at least semi-credible sources that people have posted to prove a point. I've done it, jeff's done it, Inq's done it, pigeonmeister has done it... pretty sure we all have.

I'm not saying it needs to become a courtroom where the evidence is under extreme scrutiny. This is, after all, and internet board. But don't be surprised if no one will take you seriously if you won't back it up.

Toilet humor??? Well, I have a weakness for racial-based comedy despite this PC audience because I genuinely find it funny. Anyone remember Eddie Murphy's Himeytown? Classic. I'm digressing though.

I'm not as politically correct as you think. Racial humor is fine by me, as long as it's all in good fun and it goes both ways. But to seriously point to stereotypes as supporting evidence in an argument is not comedy (or rather it is comical, but I suspect not in a way you mean it to be ), it's borderline/is racism.

Also, you mentioned that I like to argue. Duh!!! Why else do I post here?

I draw a difference between argue and debate. And the latter is what is usually done here.

Well I'm not advocating isolationism, just a moratorium on gifts,

If this is across the board, I still disagree with this position, but I certainly see it as a valid one (and I see the reason in it, certainly). The point is, you don't come across this way. Even if you were pointing at only Israel would not be so bad, but your reasons behind it are, in mine and others opinions, racism.

ESPECIALLY to countries that, if they wish to exist, should do so on their own, UNLESS there is legitimate strategic benefit that outweighs the expenditure. We can still trade with the world, just stop giving them money. Besides, the jews, whose successful lobby created Zion in the first place has plenty of money. Let them spend their OWN!

I think one of jeff's points is, that Israel ain't the only one. There are plenty of countries out there that exist due to us with no or very little strategic value (certainly less strategic value than the cost at which we fought for them). Korea is a, but far from the only, example provided.

BTW: Jeff contrasting israel with Korea is like Dildos and Apples... israel, other than the mere mention that we are 'friends', does so little for us militarily, strategically, geopolitically. Korea....well thats been well covered by those who watch lots of History Channel.

I would certainly wager Korea has not provided direct value to the US that would outweigh the cost of lives and money we pumped into it. Indirectly, sure, but so does Israel. Direct value is not why we supported/support either of them, IMHO.

Incidentally, I make free, glib connections between israel and 'the jews' due to its historical birth and the reasons behind it. They are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.

No, they are not. that statement equates to "All Israelis are Jews, and so all Jews must be Israelis". That is certainly not the case. Nor do even all Jews support Israel! I know Jewish people myself who are either firmly against support of Israel, or are on the fence. Surely not zealot supporters. Hence another reason why I firmly reject this stereotype you put forth that "the Jewish lobby" must be supporting Israel hence that's why we do. Not all Jews support Israel!

Finally, what's with this Freud thing? I'm not capitalizing jews and israel just because it bugs the bleep out of some of you. I freely admit I'm doing it purposely. People read into what was originally a typo and start shouting to the hills 'Anti Semite'. So I ran with it. Why do I care what the jews think? Or any group for that matter.

If it was a typo alone, I don't think there's a huge deal. Blatantly not doing it is disrespectful. I pointed out Israel because I found it funny you now don't capitalize the names of countries either. The fact that you do not capitalize Jew or Israel as it should be I do find interesting.

Do what you wish, bro, you don't have to care what others think. Just don't be surprised when people call you a troll and racist.

And again, I do hold the jews to a higher standard since their lobby is unusually successful despite the small population it represents, their pull with the Christian Right despite their contrary-to Christianity religious views, the questionable worth of israel as an 'ally' in the Middle East.

This is another one of those points which you cannot prove that not everyone takes as self-evident.

'Ally' does not mean 'freeloader'.

'Friend" also should not mean 'whoever happens to be useful to me at the time'.

As pointed out, if this were the case, there would have been far shadier alliances in the past.

PS: I am not the only one. 30 secs on Google shows that some jews, like Gilad, a former IDF officer and British Citizen, think as I do. Too bad he isn't in power. Perhaps we'd have a more ethical, humane, cheaper on the US budget 'ally'. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/0...g-idf-sadists/

I never said there weren't more nutjobs on the internet.

I have no doubt that there are those out there which support your position. But I doubt it's because he thinks the "Jewish lobby" in America is so powerful. I'll give the article a little read later though and see.

[I_luv_saber]

I_luv_saber;780048]
See below. I've included a great deal of evidence to support what I've always known to be factually true about jews, even if you wish to deny it. Within the context of this arg., you are going to regret saying the above. How do you say mindless patsy in Yiddish? Is it Schmuck!!??

I very much doubt it.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/0...g-idf-sadists/
Clearly, cruelty is deeply rooted in Israeli society. It may take two to tango, but apparently it doesn’t take more than two Israeli soldiers to prove to us all what Israel and the Jewish national revival is all about.

So then, since America was responsible for Guantanemo all Americans must be cruel racists that want all Arabs dead? What about all the atrocities committed by armies of other people's? This proves nothing.

Btw, you are also ignoring the fact that the Israeli's are continuing to be shot at (even during "treaty"). Now, I simply glided over the article, but all I saw was "handcuffed Palestinian man". It doesn't say this was not a POW, and does not say he was subjected to torture. The rest of the article is nothing but anti-Israel rhetoric. There's not much actual information in that article aside from the man a Palestinian was shot.

Seemingly, barbarism is deeply engraved within Israeli society and the Hebraic culture. It shouldn’t take us by surprise. It was that very barbarism that led to the uprooting of the Palestinian population in 1948. It is a barbarism that is fuelled by a complete dismissal of Otherness that has been maintaining Israel and Zionism since then.

More rhetoric that comes from the single item of a Palestinian being shot in a time of war. Now, not knowing all the information and simply what was put forth, that doesn't sound like barbarism to me. It sounds like the execution of a prisoner.

Let's not mention the terrorist acts of the Palestinians either, eh?

[i]Why is this??? Israel was founded under the tent of Zionism. It pervades the whole of the thing. Zionism contends that a jew is a citizen of jewry and Israel(there I capitalized it for you) first and foremost, even at the expense of the country they currently live in.

Israel was founded under the tent of Zionism because they were facing anti-semitism of an unprecedented scale. They were, and are, looking for what's best for themselves (which, according to you, is what we should be doing as well, so why are you faulting them for this?).

What would you call it then? It is happening despite your denial.

What is happening? I don't doubt Israel is killing people. You can only be shot at for so long before you fight back (i.e. Tom is still shooting and the cops haven't shown up yet!). You expect them to... what? Sit and be shot at? I really, really would rather not delve into this discussion again this was well covered not long ago at all in a thread already. You can use the search function and see the arguments made for/against it there.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html
The BBC wrote on their website:
Jewish American historian Norman Finkelstein argues in his explosive new book, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" that Holocaust remembrance has been exploited by the Jewish establishment.
In his book he contends that a greater threat to the memory of the Holocaust than Holocaust deniers is what he calls 'The Holocaust Industry'.

He accuses those who exploit the Holocaust of telling lies and of naked greed. He argues that the ruthless industrialisation of the Holocaust has encouraged the rebirth of anti-semitism in Europe and the United States.

This is walking a very thin line and dangerous line to saying the Holocaust was an exaggerated event.

While I of course agree that there are those that will exploit anything to put themselves forward, to say the entire Jewish people (as a whole) do this is ridiculous.

Stalin targeted them because they were bad in his eyes. The war targeted them because they staffed the front lines. Death is death. Who and why are important, but as I've pointed out earlier you manage to miss the strategic importance of targeting the jews. Hitler wanted a victim. He chose a prominent minority with money. Call them jews, chinese, etc. I call them unfortunate victims with a good PR campaign.

Again, I disagree. Hitler held a personal hatred of the Jews.

The holocaust is a tragic event as I have said many times throughout this thread. Yet I do believe the jews lobby via pity, quite successfully, for what was done to them by Germany. Germany owes them money. We don't. Why are taxpayer dollars being lobbied for by AIPAC and others? Cuz they have their rich hand out. I wonder how much Germany gives to the jews....

Again, I do not doubt those people exist. I by no means think that this is representative of any major majority of the Jewish people. It's nothing but a stupid, convenient stereotype. Nor do I think we give money to Israel out of pity from the Holocaust.

It has been pointed out that those countries have a greater strategic worth than israel.

Your litmus test for it was that they must have more strategic value than the cost put out. I don't think very many of the countries we helped pass that test of direct strategic value.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articl...673045,00.html

Here's a seemingly non-partisan Israeli site that states you know little of world affairs and how the jews handle their money...heres a quote..

Orly Azulay Published: 02.17.09, 10:45 / Israel Jewish Scene

Prominent Jewish lecturers from Cornell, Berkley, NYC, Wisconsin and Boston universities have already signed it, as well as major Jewish philanthropists.
"The State of Israel depends on the political, financial and moral support of American Jews," said Tenenbaum.

I think you misunderstood. My point was against the fact that you say Jews do nothing to give back to the community. THAT IS a nasty racist stereotype. I'm sorry, it just is. I don't doubt that Israel receives financial backing to Jewish Americans, aside from the American government.

You are a bleeping moron. Now get off your keyboard and go read something

.

You misunderstood what point I was contesting (which frankly I find surprising that you thought me calling it a racial stereotype was approaching the fact that Jews send money to Israel, not Jews don't give anything back to the community). I think many would agree you are the moron on this forum. Racial stereotypes do not = evidence. Sorry. That only works in a room full of racists .

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Which doesn't refute my point that we do not support countries solely out of self-interest. Disagreeing that it is the right choice, yes, but doesn't refute my point.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

While I'm glad you've decided to play the game right and go quote hunting, I'm afraid I hold the same opinion as some others on this board in saying that Europeans have historically been, and still are, biased against Israel. I won't delve too deep into it as this was approached at large in the Gaza thread already. If you'd like I can link you to the posts where it was done so.

Here's another great piece on how the jews used the same methods to expel Arabs during the creation of Israel as was used UPON THEM during WW2
http://en.timeturk.com/John-Pilger-H...36-yazisi.html

This was again approached in the Gaza thread. It isn't denied (at least by me) that Israel's hands aren't clean in this conflict. They had also resorted to terrorism in their time (though, to say it was to the level of and the same methods used on them is not correct, I think). The difference is, that while Israel has all but abandoned these tactics and wishes (or has shown wishes of in the past) a 2 state solution, Palestinians continue to use terrorism and outright reject any compromise. In fact they call for nothing but the destruction of the Jewish people. I'll not go tit for tat in this debate however, as this has all already been discussed. Where were you a month ago, bud?

[I_luv_saber]

PPS: A further quik search of google shows that only as a result of the recent downturn have the Jews decided by and large to start cutting back on their own support to Israel. If their own kind is cutting back WHY SHOULDN'T THE TYPICAL AMERICAN CITIZEN ARGUE THE SAME ABOUT their TAXDOLLARS!!!! (How's that for capital letters you schmucks)...or should I say...How decidedly jewish of them????

Me personally, it's not the fact we should be cutting back across the board that I disagree with. It is A) the racist reasoning you use and B) the fact that we should only support those who we can use and should have no morality in the decision of who to support which bothers me.

She continued, "We're not forgetting Israel, certainly not. But we have a new situation now, and we also need to take care of ourselves, and our means are not unlimited."

So why oh why am I an Anti-semite when I argue the American taxpayer should lobby for the same? (cuz I didn't capitalize "jew".....)

You are an anti-semite because you believe there is some mass Jewish lobby controlling America, because you think that Jews don't give back to community, and because of similar racist statements. Don't go crying that you are being called a racist for arguing taxpayers should lobby for cutbacks when you know damned well that's not what people are seeing as racism and why you are being called a racist. This thread was not:

I think we should start cutting back on the massive amounts of money we are sending to Israel.

RAAAACIST!!!

Nice try playing the victim role, though. Unfortunately, I may have been born at night, but I wasn't born last night!

[pigeonmeister]

If you have any doubt as to whether the Israel Lobby still has enormous clout, then check out how they have just bulldozed the selection of Charles Freeman as chair the National Intelligence Council.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html

Freeman left no doubt about where he places blame in a written statement after his withdrawal.

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he wrote.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

[Fencer X and Y]

I don't think anyone here is denying that the AIPAC is a powerfull force. But so what. In America we have a saying money talks bull**** walks. If a group can get enough money to suupport a cause they believe in then maybe it's a worhty cause. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. Has anyone found anything better? I haven't heard of it. Maybe someone can enlighten me to a better political system then the US.

[pigeonmeister]

Words fail me.