Should the U.S. support Israel?

[Keronians]

Without the wars, you would have nowhere to enter to make your profits.

lolwut?

Without the wars and shows of real protection in the Middle East, for example, your promises of protection would not really appeal to SA, for example.

[Crabulonia]

Without the wars, you would have nowhere to enter to make your profits.

lolwut?

Well the Nazis certainly didn't like America, no reason they'd buy American goods when they owned Europe - which had plenty industry as it was. Therefore, if America hadn't entered the Second World War, they would have lost European markets, which could have expanded to mean they might have lost the entire Afro-Eurasian landmass market as Japan would take all of the East and the Nazis would take all of the West. You'd maybe have Australia as a holdout but I somehow doubt it could have lasted very long against the Japanese on full assault.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Yes it's really cute that some people think that the level of theological insanity in the Middle East and in the U.S are somehow equivalent. Is there homophobia in the U.S? Yes. Is it a punishable offense? No.

Do you realize just how insulting that is to people in the Muslim world who fight against these types of prejudices?

Actually, more like that in the US (overall) it's treated fairly similar to Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus or Iraq. And that there is certainly elemental support in the US of measures very similar to the more militant Islamic Nations; just look at US Christian Fundamentalist Support of the measures in Uganda... My ultimate point is that we're closer to Jordan or Turkey, than Israel. Not to hit upon that Islamic faith is evil, nor on an idea that Americans regularly execute homosexuals.

I would posit that Turkeys the only nation you can really compare it to though. Premarital sex in general is punishable in even the more moderate Muslim countries, including the Maldives. But yes - as far as individual groups go, your fundmentalists give ours a run for their money. I'd still say that overall - we win.

Though I hear Israels getting more conservative by the minute - and the craziest of the Rabbis are gaining ever more influence.

[Arizinia]

[DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS NOT MENT TO BE RACIST IN ANY WAY! IF YOU TAKE OFFENCE, DO NOT REPORT IT!]

We should BY FAR. IT IS OUR PROBELM! EVER NOTICE THAT ALMOST ALL OF ISRAEL'S ENEMIES EITHER HOUSE TERRORISTS, ARE TREATS TO THE UNITED STATES, OR BOTH? SUPPORTING ISRAEL OPENLY WOULD SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS! WE WOULD BE ABLE TO STOP IRAN, MOP UP AL QUEDA AND THE TALIBAN! SUPPORT ISRAEL!

[Costa Fiero]

I would posit that Turkeys the only nation you can really compare it to though. Premarital sex in general is punishable in even the more moderate Muslim countries, including the Maldives. But yes - as far as individual groups go, your fundmentalists give ours a run for their money. I'd still say that overall - we win.

It's actually about how prevalent Sharia Law is in whichever Muslim countries you are talking about. More "moderate" Muslim countries, such as Turkey, permit Sharia Law at an optional family level, rather than at a state level such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

[Anthonlandsylvania]

Nope. Not until Israel stops it genocide of the Palestinian people and gives back all of their land and relocate so where were they won't be taking land and abusing people of different ethnic and religious groups.

[Great New Albion]

This is.... a difficult question. Because Israel has to constantly defend itself from ultimate destruction. One one hand If we supported Israel (and indirectly defeated it's enemies) then much of the Middle East would be peaceful.

What is this?

Peace can never be created through war, only vengeance, extremism and then more war.

[Conserative Morality]

What is this?

Peace can never be created through war, only vengeance, extremism and then more war.

That's why WW2 did not bring a lasting peace to the European continent. That's why Nazi Germany still exists.

[EnragedMaldivians]

This is.... a difficult question. Because Israel has to constantly defend itself from ultimate destruction. One one hand If we supported Israel (and indirectly defeated it's enemies) then much of the Middle East would be peaceful.

What is this?

Peace can never be created through war, only vengeance, extremism and then more war.

Yes it can. The U.S enforced a viable security regime in the Middle East after the first gulf war - until the Bush Jr. Administration went completely insane.

The European Concert in the 19th century, following the Napoleonic invasions, enforced a balance of power under Mettenrich - using the threat of force to keep the peace.

Your statement is idiotic.

[Yootwopia]

ALMOST ALL OF ISRAEL'S ALLIES EITHER HOUSE TERRORISTS, ARE TREATS TO THE UNITED STATES, OR BOTH?

The Oklahoma bomber aside, I dunno that there are all that many allies of Israel that house terrorists.

[Yootwopia]

Yes it can. The U.S enforced a viable security regime in the Middle East after the first gulf war

That was less to do with the US and more to do with the fact that Iran and Iraq had been bled dry by close to ten years of extremely brutal warfare, and Syria was nearly as broke from its involvement in the Lebanese civil war. Even then, Yemen had a bit of a scrap amongst itself.

The European Concert in the 19th century, following the Napoleonic invasions, enforced a balance of power under Mettenrich - using the threat of force to keep the peace.

I think it was more people being worried about the revolutionary character of their own people than any pretence of military power being able to stop wars going on. After all, France got involved in the Spanish succession, war was only narrowly avoided over Belgium, and the Crimean, Italian, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars all took place undre the supposed restrictions of the Concert of Europe.

[Pyroclastic]

i personally believe we should support israel.
we dont have to agree with everything they do.
but remember this israel is surrounded by countries who want to wipe the entire country and all of the poeple in it off of the earth. Its kinda hard in that situation to not have somewhat extremist views.
as for their us vs the rest policy look where they are situated and you will get an idea why they are so paranoid.
for example iran (who may or may not be building nucleaur weapons) has said that they want to completly destroy israel
also israel could be considered the minority that the majority is trying to oppress. this in of itself kinda backs the US into a moral corner

this is my two cents

[TEXARRAKIS]

Certainly not. But as we all know, the USA does not support somewhere without getting something from it. What is better than a puppet in an enemies territory? The USA barks, Israel allows the USA to launch there. The USA barks, Israel attacks. etc.

[Crabulonia]

i personally believe we should support israel.
we dont have to agree with everything they do.
but remember this israel is surrounded by countries who want to wipe the entire country and all of the poeple in it off of the earth. Its kinda hard in that situation to not have somewhat extremist views.
as for their us vs the rest policy look where they are situated and you will get an idea why they are so paranoid.
for example iran (who may or may not be building nucleaur weapons) has said that they want to completly destroy israel
also israel could be considered the minority that the majority is trying to oppress. this in of itself kinda backs the US into a moral corner

this is my two cents

The people who want to wipe them off the face of the earth though can't really can they? They are all broke and lack the same military technology. Truth of the matter is that if Israel wants peace, maybe it shouldn't use white phosphorous on civilians?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Yes it can. The U.S enforced a viable security regime in the Middle East after the first gulf war

That was less to do with the US and more to do with the fact that Iran and Iraq had been bled dry by close to ten years of extremely brutal warfare, and Syria was nearly as broke from its involvement in the Lebanese civil war. Even then, Yemen had a bit of a scrap amongst itself.

The European Concert in the 19th century, following the Napoleonic invasions, enforced a balance of power under Mettenrich - using the threat of force to keep the peace.

I think it was more people being worried about the revolutionary character of their own people than any pretence of military power being able to stop wars going on. After all, France got involved in the Spanish succession, war was only narrowly avoided over Belgium, and the Crimean, Italian, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars all took place undre the supposed restrictions of the Concert of Europe.

1. Following the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was broke and he came up with some spurious excuses for annexing Kuwait, so that he could use their oil wealth to fund his grandiose domestic projects. His territorial ambitions came too close to comfort for Saudi Arabia - and that's why they requested a military presence by the Americans, following Saddams defeat - to enforce a security regime in the region, in return for being the OPEC swing producer. During the 90's keeping Iran and Iraq in check, with the "Dual-Containment", policy had everything to do with the Americans. Saddam had calculated that he had a real incentive to go to war - and it was necesarry that a foreign hegemon bridle his ambition. It was the Neocons that took it too far and wanted to go from simple containment - to completely altering the political landscape of the Middle East.

2. I specified the Mettenrich phase of it. He was forced into resignation following the 1848 revolutions; the Franco Prussian war was in 1871.

Anyway, I generally agree with Paul Schroeder in that the early phase of the system worked by dint of the dual factors of diplomacy and the threat of force containing overambition. For instance, the British Navy deterred interventionism from non-Spanish Portuguese powers, after the colonies belonging to the Iberian powers in the Americas rebelled. Furthermore, in the New-Eastern Crisis during 1832-41 France backed down - after initially being peeved when the Great powers intervened on behalf of the Sultan against the Pasha uprising without their consultation - after Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia called their bluff.

By the later phases, some unhealthy habits had crept in, with alliances becoming too entrenched and in addition nationalist aspirations were too much to contain. Even still, the conflicts of this period were quite limited in scope compared to the preceding century and the one that followed; thus it was a relatively peaceful system.

[Yootwopia]

1. Following the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was broke and he came up with some spurious excuses for annexing Kuwait, so that he could use their oil wealth to fund his grandiose domestic projects. His territorial ambitions came too close to comfort for Saudi Arabia - and that's why they requested a military presence by the Americans, following Saddams defeat - to enforce a security regime in the region, in return for being the OPEC swing producer. During the 90's keeping Iran and Iraq in check, with the "Dual-Containment", policy had everything to do with the Americans. Saddam had calculated that he had a real incentive to go to war - and it was necesarry that a foreign hegemon bridle his ambition.

Yes I actually know all of this already. What I'm saying is that the Americans being around was less important than the whole region being massively broke, outside of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

2. I specified the Mettenrich phase of it.

Yep, and once again bullshit treaties or "guidance" were less important than everyone shitting bricks about the stability of their own regimes in my opinion.

[EnragedMaldivians]

1. Following the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was broke and he came up with some spurious excuses for annexing Kuwait, so that he could use their oil wealth to fund his grandiose domestic projects. His territorial ambitions came too close to comfort for Saudi Arabia - and that's why they requested a military presence by the Americans, following Saddams defeat - to enforce a security regime in the region, in return for being the OPEC swing producer. During the 90's keeping Iran and Iraq in check, with the "Dual-Containment", policy had everything to do with the Americans. Saddam had calculated that he had a real incentive to go to war - and it was necesarry that a foreign hegemon bridle his ambition.

Yes I actually know all of this already. What I'm saying is that the Americans being around was less important than the whole region being massively broke, outside of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

2. I specified the Mettenrich phase of it.

Yep, and once again bullshit treaties or "guidance" were less important than everyone shitting bricks about the stability of their own regimes in my opinion.

1. Thus there was an incentive to invade them for their wealth - which is what Saddam did with Kuwait. American might being the disincentive then becomes a factor.

2. Agree to disagree.

[Yootwopia]

1. Thus there was an incentive to invade them for their wealth - which is what Saddam did with Kuwait.

There was something of an incentive, although the Kuwaitis were always extremely generous about splashing the cash to keep the peace. There was also absolutely no money, nor a populace wanting any more warfare for a long time.

[Distruzio]

I'm curious about NS's opinion on this.

Do you think that the United States should be supporting Israel, why or why not?

I personally believe that we should stop supporting Israel because they are more trouble then they are worth and being there ally makes us enemies of the Islamic world.

In what way do you mean support?

Do you mean financially? Then no.

Do you mean militarily? Then no.

Do you mean culturally? Yes.

Do you mean morally? Yes.

Do you mean religiously? Meh.

[Vetalia]

We should support them, but only in the context of supporting all Middle Eastern nations to promote security, democratization, economic reform and development.

[Qatarab]

if the US supported and treated all nations in middle east the same,the middle easterners wouldn't be so quick to combine anything bad done by the US or Israel into an anti-US/Israel ideology.

[Augarundus]

I don't recognize the United States or Israel (or any other states), so answering this is poll puzzling.

[Costa Fiero]

Nope. Not until Israel stops it genocide of the Palestinian people and gives back all of their land and relocate so where were they won't be taking land and abusing people of different ethnic and religious groups.

You're not serious are you?

[Arkinesia]

The US shouldn't give two shits.

That's what I say, wot wot.

[Soufrika]

No, we should cut off everything but purely diplomatic ties, let them and the "Palestinians" butcher each other. "Genocide," you say? I don't give a damn.