User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 71

  1. #61
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millerm277 View Post
    One may argue that they are an ally in the "War On Terror". (I find that to be a ridiculous idea.) Of interest to our current government is that Israel is a good counter to Iran, from their point of view.

    Also, another point:

    Like it or not, the majority of americans have a distrust/dislike of the Arab countries of the middle east. They generally have a more positive opinion of Jews/Israel. I can assure you, that if the american public didn't like Israel, politicians would not go out of their way to publicly "aid" Israel.
    I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  3. #63
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's.
    That's directly connected to the Camp David Accords, which were largely responsible for removing the threat of another regional war against Israel with massed armies involved (no, the Lebanese wars don't compare). I think it also served to keep Egypt out of the USSR's orbit (I would need to take a refresher on Cold War history to be sure), a very important consideration before 1989. Even now, withdrawing aid that we are treaty-bound to deliver would likely create more problems than its worth.

    On the subject of the OP, I don't think a bi-national state would work; neither side wants it, and the Palestinians would be collectively unable to abide by the necessary terms, anyway. Its not entirely their fault, but Palestinian society has become a fundamentally sick society; the fact that Arabs in Israel can live very well (albeit as second-class citizens) while Jews would be unable to live-period-in a Palestinian state limits the amount of sympathy I might otherwise have for a people who have been screwed over so thoroughly by historical developments.

  4. #64
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.
    The Yom Kippur War was only 35 years ago. Egypt is a moderate by Arab standards in the Middle East now, but they aren't exactly allies. Besides, the point was that the United States' interests in the area were political and tactical, not ideological.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #65
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.
    I agree. I was just putting up what the typical line of reasoning that will be cited is.

    My personal opinion is that I happen to like Israel (I was raised Reform Jewish, and half my family is.), and I don't agree with giving massive amounts of aid to Israel, as it's wealthy enough to afford it at this point, and it has the weapons it needs to defend itself. (A lesser amount of aid would seem reasonable).
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  6. #66
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I don't mean to claim any more honorable position for the US. Hitler had sympathisers here, too, and not just on the fringes... Some mainstream media here was publishing laudatory articles about the Fuhrer in the 1930s. And I never would propose that the US got into the war to save Jewish lives. The political class in Washington at that time was likely as anti-Semitic as they come. Not outspokenly so, of course, but in more of a "you might employ one, but you'd never let your daughter marry one" kind of way.

    As for British Nazi sympathizers, a cursory glance at Wikipedia pulled up the following on the Duke of Windsor:

    ...
    This is exactly what I feared, the fact that a single duke was interested in the Germans (bearing in mind the British Royal family is german) does not mean that there was widespread sympathy for the nazi's or anti-semitism in Britain (which is what matters as it is and was then a full democracy). Yes there were some highly placed pro german aristocracts. They mostly just wanted peace, not a facist reigme for Britain and at the time the "final solution" was not widely unknown about. All I was trying to establish is that anti-semitism had nothing to do with British policy making in the 1930's or 40's. Other factors; such as re-armaments programs, how to pay for them while the world stumbles through the great depression and how to convince a nation still horriffied by the last war that they may have to do it again. In 1932 a government white paper identify a threat from germany and that another war was likely. It also identified Japan and Italy as threats, concluding that the british empire could meet any one of these threats alone, but not if two of them became aggressive at once.... opps.

    I'm sorry but any erstwhile and annoyed Duke has had little to no say/power in british politics since 1688.

    The above wiki stuff is wonderful though. It gives us an incredible insight into how important people thought the royals were, despite not being. The duchess having an affair with the german ambassador.. great.. leaking secrets... hehehe... and what secrets do you think she knew? The war cabinet did not often include a sidelined duke in their considerations, infact half the time they didn't even inform the king of the details of what they were up to. Also even if htey had included him, considering that his wife was having an affair do you think he would share all with her? It's a terribly romantic view/opinion of the place fo the royals but even if Edward did sympathise with the Nazis it didn't mean that the ordinary policy makers and people did. In fact I recall my grandparents talking about him... "He was a traitor you know, kept talking to old adolf." my grandmother said... Certainly he was not heading some deep felt, grass roots, pro nazi, anti-semite movement in Britain.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.
    Yes Egypt has effectively taken the bribe... and that is why they have their own problems with radical islamists and nationalist groups that occasional gun down toursits etc....

  8. #68
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    (lots of very reasonable pro-Brit apologetics)
    Dom, I think the fairest way to summarize my point of view on this matter is to say that, in the 1920s and '30s in the west, there were plenty of folk that held provincially intolerant views about Jews, and our post-WWII loathing of Nazism had not yet come to be.

    Prior to the first acts of German expansion, very few people could see what Nazism really was at its core, or where it would take Germany. Churchill was considered something of a mad dog for his ferocious opposition to Hitler, until the blitz proved him right. Even after the US became involved in the war, Roosevelt discounted reports of the concentration camps as Zionist propaganda.

    Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.

  9. #69
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.
    The fraction was higher than many people would now believe. You had some Old Right types who were anti-WWI and noninterventionist who thought Germany got a raw deal with the Treaty of Versailles (which was true). You had the Progressive Era social engineering types who appreciated the eugenics and nationalst/Futurist tendencies of Fascism and Nazism, and you had the more radical New Dealers who wanted to model a new managerial, corporative "state capitalism" on the rising totalitarian states in Continental Europe. And, for the more vigilant racists, plain old anti-Semites and the German American Bund.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #70
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Dom, I think the fairest way to summarize my point of view on this matter is to say that, in the 1920s and '30s in the west, there were plenty of folk that held provincially intolerant views about Jews, and our post-WWII loathing of Nazism had not yet come to be.

    Prior to the first acts of German expansion, very few people could see what Nazism really was at its core, or where it would take Germany. Churchill was considered something of a mad dog for his ferocious opposition to Hitler, until the blitz proved him right. Even after the US became involved in the war, Roosevelt discounted reports of the concentration camps as Zionist propaganda.

    Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.
    In the 1920's and 30's there were lots of folk who held provincially intolerant views about many many many ethnic and/or religeous groups. Anti-semtie opinion was just one anti-something of many; it is only in the light of the Holocaust that we interpret history. If you had said plenty of people were racist scum bags who wanted to persue policies that were only in-line with their national interests and didn't care much for the fate of ANY people group but themselves then I'd be happy to leave it at that. Of course that is exactly how the international community contiues to this day. We let millions die in Cambodia, thousands in Bosnia and Rwanda. Why? Cos we all hate ethenic Vietnamese? Cos their is wide spread anti-Toutsism? These are not the reasons we did next to nothing in these cases. They are not the reasons despite the fact that we could probably find examples of people who do think this kind of rubbish. The international community allows genocide because no one sees any gain for their national interest or political career to stop them. Ths is not to suggest that doing nothing was/is morally right.

    I can assure you that if we were to return to 1935 I would not be shocked at all by attitudes to german nationalism. We must consider that admiration for Germany or sympathy with her treatment at Versailles (which frankly wasn't harsh enough but that is another thread) does not equal anti-semitism. This you implictly suggest you understand by your comments about how the truth of nazism unfolded. It does not follow that just because someone didn't want a war with germany that they hated jews. It also does not follow that just because people said they wanted to do something to create a Home for Jews, that they wanted rid of them. Frankly I expect the British Government thought it could recant on the "national home for the jews in palestine" half promise of the Balfour declaration., that is much more likely that secerectly thinking: "oh great finally a way to get rid of these jews."

    As for Chruchil, he was mad dog crazy; if the British had listened to him, we would have been flying bombers to shoot down the Luffewaffe, instead of the fighters that Chamerberlain had ordered. Do you think Britain could have won "The Battle for Britain" without large numbers of fighters? The British government had already started to quitely re-arm before Churchil had started his ranting. The moderates and appeasers, were trying to buy time and avoid war if they could, they were not shy of it.

    I could go on more but I've de-railed the thread far enough... maybe this should be split off?

Similar Threads

  1. Nation States
    By asynartetic in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-12-2017, 10:02 AM
  2. National Character?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:29 PM
  3. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM
  4. bi-polar bomb dropped
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 05:32 AM
  5. Kid Nation
    By Atomic Fiend in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 09:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO