No. It shows that a whole bunch of madmen are willing to send some mother's child to blow himself to bits and murder as many OTHER children as he can.
NIX
Posted on 12/30/2001 9:36:17 AM PST by Demidog
Arguments over Israel and support of Israel are extremely contentious.
Support for Israel runs the gambit from those who support them, to the extent of wanting them to be an extension of the U.S. in the middle east, to those who are anti-Semitic and would like to see Israel destroyed.
Of course there is some middle ground, but in general the arguments about how the U.S. should treat Israel in the context of our broader foreign policy decisions is generally framed with opponents accusing each other of one extreme end of the spectrum or the other.
Hidden amongst the rhetorical rubble of these combative arguments, is the unanswered question which I believe is the core issue regarding Israel and U.S:
Who gets to decide the fate of Israel?
Is it Israel? Or is it the foerign policy wonks of the U.S. who are more interested in U.S. interests than those of Israel?
Staunch supporters of Israel would like to have their cake and eat it too. They would like the U.S. to continue to send billions in foreign and military aid, and yet butt out of Israel's own foreign policy decisions. Those on the opposite end probably want the same cake: U.S. support ceases and is over-run by her enemies.
If Israel lobs a missile or plants a booby trap that kills Palestinian children, the arguments flare up again and those who do not support Israel (like the so-called "Amen-Corner") perceive such incidents as license to condemn Israel and question U.S. support. While the "Amen-Corner" fights tooth and nail sometimes even ignores real attrocities or blames the victims of those attrocities in order to keep the pressure on to continue aid to Israel.
But it's a losing proposition for both sides.
Those who support Israel to the extreme do not get what they want because U.S. foreign policy is not concerned at all with what is in the best interests of Israel. It is concerned with U.S. interests. And those who do not support Israel (for whatever reason) do not have a choice. They must support Israel because they cannot direct their tax dollars away from Israel.
The money and aid that the U.S. sends to Israel has strings attached like all welfare programs foreign or domestic. Israel will never get to fully direct its own foreign policy as long as it is required to cowtow to U.S. demands. And it will always have to cowtow to U.S. demands as long as the U.S. government is providing the aid.
The right thing for Israel to do, if it is interested in becoming truly independent is to reject that aid. But this is easier stated than put into action.
Israel could no more reject American aid than a heroin addict could stare at a fresh fix and walk away.
The relationship between Israel and the U.S. is viewed by some as necessary to bring stability to the middle east. But the relationship is not healthy. It is marred, and more resembles a pimp/hooker relationship than two friends who are trying to help each other.
I have said on more than one occasion that our support of Israel is not moral. But this is not quite accurate. It isn't the support itself that is immoral. It is the forced nature of the support that is immoral combined with the U.S.'s insistence that control be associated with that support.
Those Americans that do not wish to support Israel should not have to do so. Just like none of us should have to support a family with our labor via Section 8, welfare programs or public schools, we should also not have to support another nation against our will.
Those who wish to support Israel with their taxes should be allowed to send as much as they wish. And I would venture a guess that the support Israel received from private citizens would far surpass what is given now (12 dollars or so per taxpayer).
And furthermore, how much sense does it make for the U.S. to send aid to both Israel and the Palestinians or Jordanians or other potential enemies of Israel against the wishes of those who support Israel?
It doesn't at all. That is why we must stop foreign aid to Israel and leave it in the hands of our private citizens. Of course, combined with this must also be the end of the Income tax. Ending the Income Tax would free the American people to support whomever they wished, foreign or domestic, without strings and without government control.
Since when is the U.S. as a nation qualified or even authorized to decide what is best for any nation other than the U.S.?
Since.....never.
And the added benefit to such a solution is the immediate calming of the rhetoric and the elimination the perceived problem with those of us who want an end to U.S. managed support of Israel: coersion.
There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel. It should not be forced at the point of a gun.
No. It shows that a whole bunch of madmen are willing to send some mother's child to blow himself to bits and murder as many OTHER children as he can.
NIX
You're a liar.
So now Spotlight articles are untruthful? Geez, get your stories straight.
Your post from this thread:
To: vrwc54
Because the publishers of spotlight write something does not necessarily mean it isn't true.
At any rate, guilt by association is a propaganda technique and isn't a valid means of refutation. If you are going to make an accusation you had better have some corroboration else you are just name-calling.
230 posted on 12/30/01 4:47 PM Pacific by Demidog
You have extremely serious reading comprehension problems. I suggest you seek help for this affliction.
GOD was instrumental in establishing this nation as a Godly nation. A nation where freedom loving people from every other nation could come and enjoy being an American. Because of that freedom, people with the most wonderful talent came from every nook and cranny of the world to ply their trade and find the American dream. This could not have been possible anywhere else except America.
But ... before the beginning of Israel, it was America who went to war against Hitler and rescued the Jews.
Then, it was America who supported Israel as a new nation. No other nation in the whole world supports Israel. Why wouldn't GOD want to bless us for helping Israel? HE promised Abraham HE would bless those who blessed Israel; and we surely qualify.
Envious, huh? And think quality. My supporters are actual people with a brain. Yours are Wobbly Carto, assorted insane palie-bomber-apologists, and the catatonic wonder who's trying to say two opposite things at the same time.
Go ride, shotgun.
You are displaying the idiocy of racism. Get over it and understand the ways of the world. We have always been at war and you think the UN is going to change this? Wear a blue helmet in public.<p.
Oh, Demidog--is that the best you can come up with? That's pathetic. You can't even support your statement, "Because the publishers of spotlight write something does not necessarily mean it isn't true."
You said it, I didn't.
Say hi to Willis Carto the next time you see him. I'm sure he'll be pleased with your support of his former magazine.
Where did you pick up the UN cr*p from? Are you ON something? "We have always been at war" - what does that have to do with Palie mothers dropping their children in the meatgrinder? Where are you posting from, precisely - Gaza or some ward?
It's okay--you'll always be a little Spottie to me.
I said nothing in support of the spotlight. I merely said that just because something was published in the spotlight didn't mean that it was automatically untrue. This in no way voices support for that publication nor does it mean I have ever read the publication or heard of Willis Carto until you mentioned it.
Your problem is, you had an agenda to smear me and you're angry that it isn't working. It's only proving that you either can't read or are willfully lying.
If you aren't embarrassed you should be. Your tactics are transparent.
9/11 Celebration
Let's review the exchange, and see what we find out:
1. In post #263, I asked you a simple question.
2. In post #275, you responded without answering my question; Instead, you asked me a question.
3. In post #278, I answered your question using a quotation from Monty Python's Holy Grail. I then asked you nicely to please answer my original question(from #263).
4. In post # 298, you attempted to correct my Python quote, when in fact you were in error. Then, you simply re-posted your question which I had already answered.
5. In post #318, I corrected your mistake re: Python, then I asked you one more time to answer my question(#263).
6. Finally, in #326, you refused, saying:
Since you won't[answer my question a second time without me answering your question at all], we're done.
Which brings to mind another Python quote (a song actually), from the same movie:
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away....
When Danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out..Bravely bravely bravely bravely
Bravely bravely bravely bravely
Bravely bravely brave Sir Robin!
See ya Robin, er, Demidog.
As far as the questions go, I answered a question with a question. You refused to anser. No give. Go away.
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.