Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
This is great! Someone who actually does their homework, and backs it up with source material! But you have to be careful; a single line that combines all aid from 1949-1996 can hide more than it reveals.
Not all SC resolutions are created equal, chum. For example, there's a big difference between a Chapter 6 (requiring consent of a host nation) and Chapter 7 (which is mandatory). Nor are all resolutions interpreted equally. The biggie is UNSC 242, which in (unofficial) Arabic translation calls for Israel to return THE territories captured in 1967, vs. the Engish (official) translation which leaves out THE. (This ambiguity was intentional.)
And Israel has been "condemned" by UN bodies more often than anyone else. What does that prove, exactly?
Do you consider defending against and eventually removing a tyrant like Saddam Hussein as supporting the Arabs, yes or no?
The Soviets didn't excel when it came to financial accounting. Better to compare quantity of weapons supplied, rather than tally dollars and rubles. The quantity of weapons supplied to the Arabs in the 60s and 70s is quite astonishing in comparison to Israel. (Of course, one cannot compare aid supplied after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.)
Before we did not discuss aid in per-capita terms. No argument there, not for the period after the 1973 war, anyway.
The proofs you have presented back up MY version of events; you've simply CALLED it something else by expanding the role you've assigned the U.S. to include France and Britain.
Nasser chose to discount Eisenhower's stance and claim that it was his alliance with the USSR and an implicit threat to employ Soviet nuclear weapons that decided things. (The Soviets were busy invading Hungary; any threat that they would seek a second theater of conflict was not credible.)
Nasser's re-writing of history led to a groundswell of Arab support for destroying Israel, blinding the Arabs so much that instead of the cakewalk and genocide they and the Soviets had prepared for 1967 became a disaster instead. All that stuff would have been avoided had Eisenhower supported Britain and France to keep the Suez Canal internationalized, or if the U.N. had remained as a buffer in Sinai.
Oh, Israel is a "burden." Of course, it is also an American asset. But you didn't answer my question from earlier, wouldn't it be a greater burden on the U.S. if Israel didn't exist at all?
Unlike North Korea, Iraq, etc., Israel was never a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So Israel's nukes are manifestly legal under international law.
Didn't Israel suffer thousands of casualties in its alliance with the U.S. to defeat Soviet expansionism and influence in the past, and Iran's effort to expand its sphere of influence today?
This comes up twice in one week...the SEATO alliance was meant to defend Pakistan and the other signatories from Soviet expansionism. It was NOT a license to support Pakistan in local wars that it chose to carry out for the glory of its generals and politicians; even worse in this war, as Bhutto declared that as long as the U.S. supplied him, he was willing to sacrifice any number of Pakistanis for the sake of "victory": link
Probably not. Does that make that wrong, somehow?
Israel survived its first 20 years without U.S. support. As I've tried to point out several times, if the U.S. ended its support tomorrow Israel would have little choice other than to not just defeat but DESTROY its enemies immediately. I don't doubt that Israel plans to survive such a regional conflagration, but the human cost would be very great - something Jews aren't eager to do, as the forbearance Israel shows its enemies demonstrates.
Did you not read my Dershowitz quote in #24?
The way Arabs are haunted by their treatment of Jews yesterday and the people of Darfur today? The Arabs talk over it. Or the giant blind spot Pakistan has for the number of people the P.A. killed (minimum: 300,000) in 1971? Pakistanis ignore that, yes?
One American historian, Bruce Thornton, calculated in 2007
By comparison, Bashar Assad killed 20,000 in Hama in a week in 1982. Saddam probably killed over 250,000 Iraqis just to suppress internal dissent, and over a million in his external wars. So what, exactly, does Israel have to be haunted about?
There isn't much left, is there? If you are going to stand for freedom against tyranny, if you are going to stand in favor of human dignity rather than slaughter that brings selfish glory, if you believe that all men are created equal, then Israel is closer to achieving such than any other power in the middle east, and, as a focus of freedom's enemies, serves as a shield to America, Europe, and beyond.
Israel's existence may inflame hostility towards the West, but given the record, can one doubt that greater hostility would exist if Israel ceased to be? It would only whet the appetites of tyrants for even more, and their subject peoples would see little choice other than to go along for the ride, as the people of Germany did in WWII, and the peoples subject to Soviet rule forty years afterward, and the subjects of many Muslim dictators going back for centuries.
A very great price. Funds meant for education were diverted to nuclear development. The void was filled by the likes of the Taliban. So the price of nukes is clear: they have cost Pakistan its sanity.
