What do you think the US's policy towards Israel should be?

WolfBear

Well-known member
That's doesn't answer the question.

In my opinion, No, of course not. I hate the Nazis and the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi! :D

I have a number of people to respond to, some of which with more involved replies, but let me get this one out of the way.

I do believe that we should have remained neutral during WWII and if we had stayed out of the Middle East that the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t have happened, furthermore I think that a proper response to the Twin Towers attack doesn’t involve invading countries that didn’t even have anything to do with the attack.

I’m not a pacifist, I’m a non-interventionist and I think that our military should only be used if we’re attacked.

Me. I’m on the America First side of the debate.

I mean, I would have been sympathetic to some of the America First arguments ("We fought in Europe 20 years ago, and they're fighting again right now, so are we sure that us fighting again in Europe is actually going to be worth it?"), but ultimately, I just fear that without the US, the Anglo-Soviets simply could not inflict a decisive defeat on Nazi Germany. I mean decisive to the point where Nazi Germany is completely crushed and destroyed. Now, had France not fallen in 1940, then of course things would have been different. Then we could have comfortably stayed out while aggressively arming the Anglo-French in their war against the Nazis. Of course, this could have meant much more French casualties and deaths in WWII. France actually won WWII by quickly losing in 1940 and thus having the Russians and, to a much lesser extent, the Americans do their bleeding for them. Lucky French bastards!
 

Cherico

Well-known member
In my opinion, No, of course not. I hate the Nazis and the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi! :D



I mean, I would have been sympathetic to some of the America First arguments ("We fought in Europe 20 years ago, and they're fighting again right now, so are we sure that us fighting again in Europe is actually going to be worth it?"), but ultimately, I just fear that without the US, the Anglo-Soviets simply could not inflict a decisive defeat on Nazi Germany. I mean decisive to the point where Nazi Germany is completely crushed and destroyed. Now, had France not fallen in 1940, then of course things would have been different. Then we could have comfortably stayed out while aggressively arming the Anglo-French in their war against the Nazis. Of course, this could have meant much more French casualties and deaths in WWII. France actually won WWII by quickly losing in 1940 and thus having the Russians and, to a much lesser extent, the Americans do their bleeding for them. Lucky French bastards!

Im pretty sure the french would have prefered to not have been invaded at all.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Im pretty sure the french would have prefered to not have been invaded at all.

But once WWII actually broke out, what was a better option for French gentiles--have France quickly fall and then have the Allies still win, or have France bleed itself dry in WWII similar to WWI?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Well?

@History Learner I know that you're a severe critic of Israel due to your own Paleoconservative views. Am I right? So, cut off all US aid to Israel? Anything else? Place US sanctions on Israel? What else?

Cut off aid, institute sanctions, and list Mossad as a terrorist organization. Domestically, break up AIPAC, the ADL, etc and require their now former members to register as foreign lobbyists. Then fuck off out of the Middle East and mostly let the locals decide it as long as Suez stays open.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Cut off aid, institute sanctions, and list Mossad as a terrorist organization. Domestically, break up AIPAC, the ADL, etc and require their now former members to register as foreign lobbyists. Then fuck off out of the Middle East and mostly let the locals decide it as long as Suez stays open.

TBH, the Mossad sort of does act like a terrorist organization whenever it murders Iranian nuclear scientists. But then again, Iran and Israel are in a constant state of semi-war, so ...
 

Cherico

Well-known member
TBH, the Mossad sort of does act like a terrorist organization whenever it murders Iranian nuclear scientists. But then again, Iran and Israel are in a constant state of semi-war, so ...

imagine picking a fight with some one just to win the approval of the arab world, imagine fighting them in the shadows for decades and then one day looking around and realizing that those very same arabs have decided that they like the jews more then you.

This is what it feels like to be Iranian.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Cut off aid, institute sanctions, and list Mossad as a terrorist organization. Domestically, break up AIPAC, the ADL, etc and require their now former members to register as foreign lobbyists.
To justify that logic you would have to do the same with most of other left wing and other international humanitarian organizations.
Then fuck off out of the Middle East and mostly let the locals decide it as long as Suez stays open.
Forgot the part where you convince the US population that gasoline prices aren't something to get mad over.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
To justify that logic you would have to do the same with most of other left wing and other international humanitarian organizations.

Forgot the part where you convince the US population that gasoline prices aren't something to get mad over.

america is functionally energy independent due to shale energy, and mexican and canadean oil with the off shore stuff being our piggy bank. Middle eastern oil mostly goes to europe and asia.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
To justify that logic you would have to do the same with most of other left wing and other international humanitarian organizations.

Im fine with that, although I don’t see why I need to “justify” anything to anyone.

Forgot the part where you convince the US population that gasoline prices aren't something to get mad over.

Largely because the U.S. is capable of sustaining its own needs via sources in the Americas. Even then, as long as the straits are open we will be fine.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Im fine with that, although I don’t see why I need to “justify” anything to anyone.
To the courts and to the voters, because both can throw a wrench into that plan.

Largely because the U.S. is capable of sustaining its own needs via sources in the Americas. Even then, as long as the straits are open we will be fine.
If ME goes to shit because someone takes opportunity to try rearrange its shape, there won't be anything worth sending through the straits, and USA would need clever leadership to be able to fully rely on own oil, which may not last long if done, and which would piss off allies in a crisis like this. Other sources in Americas however would sell to the highest bidder, which, in this situation, would be quite high bidders with no domestic sources at all.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
I mean, I would have been sympathetic to some of the America First arguments ("We fought in Europe 20 years ago, and they're fighting again right now, so are we sure that us fighting again in Europe is actually going to be worth it?"), but ultimately, I just fear that without the US, the Anglo-Soviets simply could not inflict a decisive defeat on Nazi Germany. I mean decisive to the point where Nazi Germany is completely crushed and destroyed. Now, had France not fallen in 1940, then of course things would have been different. Then we could have comfortably stayed out while aggressively arming the Anglo-French in their war against the Nazis. Of course, this could have meant much more French casualties and deaths in WWII. France actually won WWII by quickly losing in 1940 and thus having the Russians and, to a much lesser extent, the Americans do their bleeding for them. Lucky French bastards!

This sort of hits the nail on the head as to the issues with some of the more anti-Israel positions here. America First is America First and not America Only, if it's in our best interest to go to war, support other nations, or something else, it's entirely permissible to get involved (which is why WWII isolationism was much harder to justify than it was in WWI).


Cut off aid

As I said before, US aid to Israel is really just US aid to US defense contractors.

institute sanctions

If we sanctioned Israel, we'd have to sanction nearly everyone else we do business with, and I'm not actually we legally can do that. The government can't just sanction anyone they want, there are rules for that, to prevent precisely this sort of behavior.

and list Mossad as a terrorist organization

I checked this, and it would be illegal to do that. The designation of a terrorist organization is controlled by this law, which states that in order to be designated as such, foreign groups must engage in terrorist activity (which Mossad does....just like most any other intelligence agency) and that the terrorist activity it engages in must threaten the Security of the United states or the lives of Americans. If you'd like to make the case that we are worse off every time mossad assassinates an iranian nuclear scientist, go ahead, but I don't like your chances.

Domestically, break up AIPAC, the ADL, etc and require their now former members to register as foreign lobbyists.

This is, again, not legal. You can't just break up organizations on a whim, you need to have an actually justification, and "I don't like them" is not what I mean. It has to be something like "this organization is actually fraudulent and is not doing anything like what it claims to be, it's just a scam to enrich the people running it".

Provided you did manage to find such a reason, you can't require the former members to register as foreign agents, because they're not lobbying on the behalf of any foreigners anymore, you just dismantled the agency they used to work for.

EDIT: Actually, that was wrong, I should have done more research.....in part because you clearly have not. You can't make AIPAC register as a foreign agent, because it's not. The foreign agent registry is for people who are officially working on behalf of, and at the direction of, a foreign government. AIPAC is neither, they're Americans arguing that our ties with Israel are beneficial, which is perfectly legal (CAIR does a similar thing, and for the same reason is not classified as a foreign agent).

Then fuck off out of the Middle East and mostly let the locals decide it as long as Suez stays open.

And if someone decides "haha, screw you, I'm going to close it anyway", what's your plan? When it got temporally blocked the last time, it cost 9 billion dollars a day in trade, and that was for less than two weeks, it would be fair worse if someone made a serious effort.

That's why we're involved in the region in the first place, it's far cheaper to prevent something from happening then it is to clean up the mess once it does.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Well-known member

Israel is a rich country. No-one subsidizes Israel's front-line opponents, these days Syria and non-state groups the way the Soviets did in the 1960s and 1970s when the truly large scale US government grant aid to Israel programs started, so US aid provides luxury and convenience to Israeli budgeters, not survival certainly. Since Camp David, aid to Israel has been paired, even "hand-cuffed" to aid to Egypt as part of a peace bribe. Peace between the two is good, but I would like to see the U.S. see if it can try to obtain equivalent results in catastrophe aversion for as low a cost as possible.

Since "big ideas" and "big solutions" have really flopped badly in the region over the last 25 years or so, I'm not in favor of investing in those. Probably the best we can do is try to look at how we can get by with less effort and sacrifice.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Israel is a rich country. No-one subsidizes Israel's front-line opponents, these days Syria and non-state groups the way the Soviets did in the 1960s and 1970s when the truly large scale US government grant aid to Israel programs started, so US aid provides luxury and convenience to Israeli budgeters, not survival certainly. Since Camp David, aid to Israel has been paired, even "hand-cuffed" to aid to Egypt as part of a peace bribe. Peace between the two is good, but I would like to see the U.S. see if it can try to obtain equivalent results in catastrophe aversion for as low a cost as possible.

Since "big ideas" and "big solutions" have really flopped badly in the region over the last 25 years or so, I'm not in favor of investing in those. Probably the best we can do is try to look at how we can get by with less effort and sacrifice.

Makes sense. And FWIW, Russia and/or Iran have made some investments in Syria in recent years, if I recall correctly, but Syria still can't militarily compete with Israel by any means.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Makes sense. And FWIW, Russia and/or Iran have made some investments in Syria in recent years, if I recall correctly,
Mostly in keeping the current government from getting swept by all sorts of moderate beheaders.
but Syria still can't militarily compete with Israel by any means.
They are kinda busy competing with local moderate beheaders, and that in turn makes them realize that dealing with even a real, modern military, even a small one, would be very unwise, even if they weren't busy.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
To the courts and to the voters, because both can throw a wrench into that plan.

The courts don't really have a say in terms of budget appropriations and public opinion is trending towards a neutral or Pro-Palestine perspective.

If ME goes to shit because someone takes opportunity to try rearrange its shape, there won't be anything worth sending through the straits, and USA would need clever leadership to be able to fully rely on own oil, which may not last long if done, and which would piss off allies in a crisis like this. Other sources in Americas however would sell to the highest bidder, which, in this situation, would be quite high bidders with no domestic sources at all.

The vast majority of American fuel supplies are domestic, followed by imports from Canada, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia. Only one of those is in the Middle East, and it's the fourth one down in terms of size. Beyond that, however, I reject the 2004 Neoconservative talking point justifying us remaining in the Middle East.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
As I said before, US aid to Israel is really just US aid to US defense contractors.

And as I also said before: So?

The military industrial complex is gonna be just fine without it but if you see it as that important, why not use it directly in our own defense budget without the third party in the form of Israel acting as a siphon and thus harming our own security?

If we sanctioned Israel, we'd have to sanction nearly everyone else we do business with, and I'm not actually we legally can do that. The government can't just sanction anyone they want, there are rules for that, to prevent precisely this sort of behavior.

Why do we suddenly have to be consistent in sanctions when we are not already? We sanction Iran, North Korea and Russia but not Saudi Arabia, China, and Azerbaijan. The only thing that has ever been consistent in U.S. foreign policy-at least since WWII-is being inconsistent and to suddenly cop to some moral standard is just attempting to stack the decks for Israel.

Finally, actually we can sanction whoever we win and in whatever capacity we want. You've confused the process for doing such as somehow stating we can't.

I checked this, and it would be illegal to do that. The designation of a terrorist organization is controlled by this law, which states that in order to be designated as such, foreign groups must engage in terrorist activity (which Mossad does....just like most any other intelligence agency) and that the terrorist activity it engages in must threaten the Security of the United states or the lives of Americans. If you'd like to make the case that we are worse off every time mossad assassinates an iranian nuclear scientist, go ahead, but I don't like your chances.

No, it's completely legal as your own source notes:

The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-​
(A) the organization is a foreign organization;​
(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f(d)(2) of title 22), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism) 1; and​
(C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.​

You don't even need Congressional approval, the President need only direct the Secretary of State to declare Mossad as such. Again, you're confusing process with inability. As for causes, it's really simple. We can cite how Israel has been selling U.S. military technology to China since the 1990s, how they have conducted significant espionage against us, and finally we can cite how their actions have directly contributed to the loss of security by tying us to their crimes.

This is, again, not legal. You can't just break up organizations on a whim, you need to have an actually justification, and "I don't like them" is not what I mean. It has to be something like "this organization is actually fraudulent and is not doing anything like what it claims to be, it's just a scam to enrich the people running it".

No, it's completely legal and the U.S. does this from time to time for other entities. AIPAC, the ADL and others all fit the criteria for unregistered foreign lobbyists and because of that can be dismantled. Back in the 1990s, the ADL was actually raided by the FBI for their spying activities.

Provided you did manage to find such a reason, you can't require the former members to register as foreign agents, because they're not lobbying on the behalf of any foreigners anymore, you just dismantled the agency they used to work for.

No, you can and again, we do this quite often because the Foreign Agents act also applies to individuals.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top