Posted on 12/10/2001 6:58:49 AM PST by Pokey78
This is false as you well know. Many countries get U.S, aid "gratis". Egypt is the next big recipient of U.S. aid in the ME and it is so because of Camp David. Israel puts back into the U.S. economy by being required to purchase U.S. military equipment. On the other hand the U.S. putting $50 billion a year just to keep Hussein in line has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm sure that's why the Ottomans invited the persecuted Jews who sruvived the Inquisition from Spain. Thanks for explaining that bringing Jews back to Palestine falls under "jihad."
Maybe you forgot that Spain was conquered by the Jihad in the space of 100 years. Oh, I'm sorry you likely overlooked that small fact. You also likely overlooked the fact that the Almohads slaughtered Jews (and Christians) by their Jihad from the Maghreb to Spain in the 12th century.
You have categorically stated an "Open Door Policy" was the vehicle of American expansionism. This is untrue. In fact "Open Door Policy" is generally acknowledged to (A)Pertain to free immigration, and/or (B) Pertain to free trade with China only. I have not seen any reference at all to "Open Door" pertaining to the Philippines and Cuba. And if you think it through, because Philippines and Cuba became American protectorates, there was no need for an "Open Door" because the US owned them lock, stock, and barrel and could and did exclude all other countries.
Again, only because you have messed this portion of history up, the Open Door happened because the decision was made to PURCHASE the Philippines for $20 million (and extend its interests over Puerto Rico and Guam as a result of the Spanish-American War) as a deliberate decision to expand its interests in the Pacific. These acts coupled with the China sphere of influence, and particularly the latter, became part of the Open Door Policy debated through the Open Door Notes.
According to that pesky Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." "The governed" clearly does not include foreign powers wishing to help themselves to a region's resources. And "everybody does it" is not an excuse.
The Declaration and Constitution give officials the elected authority to act in the interests of the American people. The American people allowed U.S. expansionism as well as a majority of the American people support Israel.
Again, what this is leading up to is you're hinting that it's perfectly OK for industrialized countries to help themselves to the resources and the lands occupied by Islamics. This in turn presupposes a need for some kind of Islamic bogeyman to justify continuous pre-emptive occupations and attacks in these strategic and resource-rich areas. Which means it's not even about Islam, ultimately, it's about neo-colonialism of the Western world
If the U.S. believed in outright hegemony and neo-colonialism it would still be occupying Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or some other Arabian country and extracting the oil on its own terms.
Thanks.
Were any of the Surah's of the Qur'an written after Islam was officially started and had been rejected by the Jews?
That's the way Surah 2 reads. Shalom.
Yes. Islam's official starting date is 622 AD when Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina. The Medina verses are the ones which talk about killing unbelievers.
Thanks for the information. I haven't read anything about killing unbelievers. I've only read that Allah has a special punishment reserved for those who have rejected his rasool.
Shalom.
By gratis I mean a there is no quid pro quo. There is no quid pro quo with Israel. Their history clearly shows they don’t have to do anything to get their check. Everyone else has to give something to get something, and if they have nothing to give, they’re SOL.
Egypt gets aid because of Camp David and the Suez Canal. Afghanistan, OTOH, had nothing to give and therefore received almost nothing even though it was an ally against the Soviets and lost two million people. Had the US spent a tiny fraction of the money in Afghanistan that it spends on the Israeli government, and is spending now to fight the war and bribe local commanders, there would be no Al-Qaida, no drugs, and no terrorism there.
The country never got the aid when it needed it because there was only one other country whose well-being we were concerned with. Whether that will now change, is too early to tell.
Israel puts back into the U.S. economy by being required to purchase U.S. military equipment.
Selling military equipment to yourself is economically useless. Military equipment destroys things and doesn’t generate wealth. Its production is a taxpayer-subsidized expenditure, which only gives economic benefits if you use it for conquest or if you pass the loss onto another country.
On the other hand the U.S. putting $50 billion a year just to keep Hussein in line has nothing to do with Israel
America originally supported Hussein as part of its endless backing of strong men who stifle progress, popular movements, and are amenable to American policies, especially commercial exploitation at favorable prices. Strong men are fine with America as long as they keep their populations from becoming pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel. Only when they cross that line do they acquire the status of bad guys.
You also likely overlooked the fact that the Almohads slaughtered Jews (and Christians) by their Jihad from the Maghreb to Spain in the 12th century
Which has absolutely nothing with Ottomans inviting Jews back, completely contrary to your statement they were "perfecting their jihad." During the 1800’s and 1900’s, the Ottomans were also allied with a Christian country, Germany. Somehow they found a way not to "perfect their jihad" against their Christian allies, either. The world is more subtle than jihad and anti-jihad.I know, too complex for your simple understanding.
Again, only because you have messed this portion of history up, the Open Door happened because the decision was made to PURCHASE the Philippines for $20 million
You’re blowing smoke. There is no connection between the Philippines which became a US possession acquired through war, and China where the US wanted all countries to be able to freely trade on equal terms. On the former, we took them over, while on the latter, we wanted to keep anyone from taking it over. Furthermore Andrew Carnegie offered to reimburse the US government for the $20 million because he was a real American who believed in independence for all people, and not a neo-colonialist.
The Declaration and Constitution give officials the elected authority to act in the interests of the American people. The American people allowed U.S. expansionism as well as a majority of the American people support Israel.
The fundamental principle underlying both the Declaration and the Constitution is that all people, everywhere, have God-given rights which are not to be interfered with. This principle trumps legalistic maneuvering to gain economic benefits. Freedom and not wealth is the core value on which America is founded.
If the U.S. believed in outright hegemony and neo-colonialism it would still be occupying Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or some other Arabian country and extracting the oil on its own terms.
Presently it’s cheaper to buy someone, and the US isn’t willing to accept the losses from attempting to use force. However the “Carter Doctine” stated the US would use nuclear weapons to defend “its” oil supply, and shows the military option has always been a consideration.
Of course that's false. Israel must buy U.S. military equipment. You'll remember the upbraiding Israel got for dealing with the Chinese some time ago as well and from time to time the House has debated witholding monies for various reasons. Moreover, Israel's biggest quid pro quo was engaging Egypt in a productive Accord which gave Egypt all it wanted (including oil fields Israel developed in the Sinai) and secured peace in that region. The effect was also to secure Egypt as an ally and taking it out of the Soviet orbit at the time.
Egypt gets aid because of Camp David and the Suez Canal. Afghanistan, OTOH, had nothing to give and therefore received almost nothing even though it was an ally against the Soviets and lost two million people. Had the US spent a tiny fraction of the money in Afghanistan that it spends on the Israeli government, and is spending now to fight the war and bribe local commanders, there would be no Al-Qaida, no drugs, and no terrorism there.
For you its all or nothing. It's not necessary to dump a democratic ally to gain another ally and strategic interests. I could as easily suggest dumping Egypt then as well. This is nonsense. Keep Egypt and Israel and as many players as possible. Don't divest because you want to chance your interests in another region. Moroever, it's my opinion, that in the end, what you presently have in Afghanistan, with the direct involvement of the International community (which could only have arisen because of the U.S. involvement) in building a coalition government, is the most positive outcome in Afghanistan of the last many years. Many of the leaders of the new Afghanistan interim government appear to be "young Turk" types, that is, moderate Muslims who are genuinely interested in viable change and growth in their country. So all things in their time. But we shall see.
Selling military equipment to yourself is economically useless. Military equipment destroys things and doesn’t generate wealth. Its production is a taxpayer-subsidized expenditure, which only gives economic benefits if you use it for conquest or if you pass the loss onto another country.
No it isn't. The recent contract in Texas for building new aircraft for Israel will put back billions into that community. It helps local businesses etc.
America originally supported Hussein as part of its endless backing of strong men who stifle progress, popular movements, and are amenable to American policies, especially commercial exploitation at favorable prices. Strong men are fine with America as long as they keep their populations from becoming pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel. Only when they cross that line do they acquire the status of bad guys.
This of course is untrue. The U.S. has backed various regimes who have been good, bad, or indifferent to Israel. Not relevant. It's when the regime starts acting up and sponsoring terrorism where the issue becomes problematic.
Which has absolutely nothing with Ottomans inviting Jews back, completely contrary to your statement they were "perfecting their jihad." During the 1800’s and 1900’s, the Ottomans were also allied with a Christian country, Germany. Somehow they found a way not to "perfect their jihad" against their Christian allies, either. The world is more subtle than jihad and anti-jihad.I know, too complex for your simple understanding.
Well if you want me to go into the numerous Jihads of the Ottomans I can certainly do that including the conquering of Constantinople, and everything else until they were stopped in the battle of Vienna in 1683 otherwise they would have Jihaded their way throughout all of Western Europe, The Ottomans enslaved Christian peoples (kidnapping many of them as youth and creating the Janissary corps) and dhimmiized them. This occurred out of successive Jihads. As I said they perfected the Jihad and were quite successful at it.
You’re blowing smoke. There is no connection between the Philippines which became a US possession acquired through war, and China where the US wanted all countries to be able to freely trade on equal terms. On the former, we took them over, while on the latter, we wanted to keep anyone from taking it over. Furthermore Andrew Carnegie offered to reimburse the US government for the $20 million because he was a real American who believed in independence for all people, and not a neo-colonialist.
Another reason I find your repetitive nonsense inane and unfruitful to discuss with you is that I stated you should check on the issue of the Open Door Notes and Open Door Policy. You didn't do so. I left for work this morning and dropped down to my local library. I checked it out and it took me all of 10 MINUTES. I have since CONFIRMED everything I said on this issue numerous times but I took one book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1972), William Appleman Williams is the author on pp. 45ff he discusses in depth the Open Door Notes and the subsequent Open Door Policy. I'll quote a portion:
This basic Weltanschauung underlying American diplomacy led directly to the great debate of 1898-1901 over the proper strategy and tactics of such expansion, a debate that was resolved by the promulgation of the famous Open Door Notes of 1899 and 1900 [he then goes on to discuss the three cornered fight on this issue between the "imperialists" and "anti-imperialists" and a third group, a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians..."who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door though which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world"]...This coalition won the debate, and the Open Door Policy became the strategy of American foreign policy for the next half-century.The fundamental principle underlying both the Declaration and the Constitution is that all people, everywhere, have God-given rights which are not to be interfered with. This principle trumps legalistic maneuvering to gain economic benefits. Freedom and not wealth is the core value on which America is founded.
False. All rights are conditioned to one degree or another.
Israel was not forced to sign the treaty by the United States, it freely did so and that can’t be called a quid pro quo
. The recent contract in Texas for building new aircraft for Israel will put back billions into that community. It helps local businesses etc.
Only building economic infrastructure and commercial products creates wealth, government spending doesn’t create new wealth. At best spending including military spending only redistributes what has already been taken by taxation. Spending tax dollars to make weapons does not uplift the economy as a whole.
The U.S. has backed various regimes who have been good, bad, or indifferent to Israel…It's when the regime starts acting up and sponsoring terrorism where the issue becomes problematic.
Any regime which is not supportive of Israel automatically gets labeled as “acting up and sponsoring terrorism.”
the battle of Vienna in 1683 otherwise they would have Jihaded their way throughout all of Western Europe, The Ottomans enslaved Christian peoples (kidnapping many of them as youth and creating the Janissary corps) and dhimmiized them.
During the era of the Battle of Vienna, European Christians were conducing witch-hunts, burning heretics at the stake, routinely torturing suspects, fighting wars with each other every bit as savage as any Ottoman conflicts, slave-trading, and hanging small children for shoplifting food they needed to keep from starving. Janissaries and dhimmis were quite well-off compared to their European kin.
I stated you should check on the issue of the Open Door Notes and Open Door Policy. You didn't do so.
There are no references I could find on the Internet stating your position. Any books that state it espouse an extremely esoteric point of view. However even if this were not the case, the Williams passage you cite specifically states “America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world” which has nothing to do with “protecting markets by force if necessary.” In other words America would compete not with force, but commercially. There is nothing wrong with economic competition on an open field. There is something wrong with enforcing economic advantages by military force i.e. “protecting markets by force.”
All rights are conditioned to one degree or another
Slavery and totalitarianism “condition” the rights of lower classes by subordinating them to the rights of the dominant classes. This is not considered acceptable because the rights of all people take precedence over the rights of a few.
Good shows how reasonable Israel was. It's quid pro quo anyway.
Only building economic infrastructure and commercial products creates wealth, government spending doesn’t create new wealth. At best spending including military spending only redistributes what has already been taken by taxation. Spending tax dollars to make weapons does not uplift the economy as a whole.
It's a win win situation. Puts the money back into the economy with spin-offs and local businesses benefit. Also maintains an ally.
During the era of the Battle of Vienna, European Christians were conducing witch-hunts, burning heretics at the stake, routinely torturing suspects, fighting wars with each other every bit as savage as any Ottoman conflicts, slave-trading, and hanging small children for shoplifting food they needed to keep from starving. Janissaries and dhimmis were quite well-off compared to thei European kin.
Overblown. Small issues. Peanuts. The Jihad was massive and had encompassed Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, North Africa, South Asia, etc. enslaving men, women and children.
There are no references I could find on the Internet stating your position
If the Internet is the extent of your knowledge claims I have pity on you. You don't know what your talking about.
preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world” which has nothing to do with “protecting markets by force if necessary.
This comes inevitably with the economic movement. Simple matter.
Slavery and totalitarianism “condition” the rights of lower classes by subordinating them to the rights of the dominant classes. This is not considered acceptable because the rights of all people take precedence over the rights of a few.
Stop with the Marxist ideology. All rights are conditioned and that is a self-evident and necessary matter in social contexts.
Stop with the Marxist ideology. All rights are conditioned and that is a self-evident
Freedom is the most basic human right. Therefore limiting freedom is the most serious abridgement of human rights, whether done by an ideology like Marxism, or by macroeconomics. Man does not live by bread alone.
Obviously, you have no idea what I'm talking about.
The original UN could never condemn Israel, and ignore totally Muslim Mass Murder all over the world.
Or endorse racism in a blatantly racist country and seem blind to the contradiction.
I could go on, but that should identify the gross difference.
YOU said that, I didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.