The "Ive got no choice... I have to bitch about Obamacare" thread

So then, why are we giving them so much $?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_...e_United_States

So then, why are we giving them so much $?

In an area we were aren't like so much, and surrounded by regimes who have ideological differences then us, we have a true ally. They are a country truly looking for peace and stability. When the UN recommended the creation of two states, Israel accepted the proposal, while the Arabs did not and launched a war, the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands until 1967, there was no move whatsoever toward Palestinian statehood before Israel control. When Arab leaders are prepared to pursue peace with Israel rather than wage war, the results have been treaties, as the experiences of Egypt and Jordan show. Finally, When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it gave local residents their first chance in history to govern themselves. Israel had only one concern, security. It wanted to ensure that whatever emerged in Gaza would not endanger Israelis. In fact, the more prosperous, stable, and peaceful Gaza became, the better for everyone. Tragically, Israel's worst fears were realized. Rather than focus on Gaza's construction, its leaders, Hamas since 2007, preferred to contemplate Israel's destruction. Missiles and mortars came raining down on southern Israel. Israel's critics, though, were silent. Only when Israel could no longer tolerate the terror did the critics awaken, to focus on Israel's reaction, not Gaza's provocative action.

 

Israel is a good country by any definition imo, its a real free country in a part of the world were freedom is scares, and one we should fully support.

 

 

More of a side note, in places such a Syria, and Iran, when we hesitate to take action Israel has actually gotten progress done to stop and slow nuclear development in countries that have stated they would use nuclear weapons when they developed them.

It saddens me that people cant discuss the overall topic of foreign aid (which I think should be eliminated across the board) without someone inevitably bringing up Israel specifically. The hard-on half the world has with Israel is the reason they are the number one recipient of U.S. Foreign aid.

 

Its remarkable really. For thirty years not a single Israeli soldier, bullet or munition has crossed the Sinai. And yet yesterday, Muhammad Ghannem, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood told Al-Alam that "The Egyptian people should prepare for war with Israel."

 

And for me, that clearly sums up which side is the aggressor. Its irrational to want to throw off a dictator just so you can go to war with a neighbor. But I guess that discounts the Jewish Shark Attacks at Egyptian Beaches.

 

 

 

 

If the Arabs had no weapons, there would be peace in the middle East.

 

If the Israelis had no weapons there would be no Jews.

 

 

So yeah.... If were going to be giving people foreign aid, Israel is going to need a lot of it just to stay on an even playing field.

If the Arabs had no weapons, there would be peace in the middle East.

 

If the Israelis had no weapons there would be no Jews.

 

So yeah.... If were going to be giving people foreign aid, Israel is going to need a lot of it just to stay on an even playing field.

 

The US isn't supporting Israel to ensure an equal playing field...the lobby dictates the terms plain and simple.

 

There are two sides to any conflict, and to think all of the arab countries are all bad and Israel is an unfortunate victim would be misguided.

 

The primary reason why Israel hasn't attacked a muslim country is because it is understood that if they do, every muslim country will declare war on them. This is why there was no Israeli led retaliation to SCUD missiles during Desert Storm.

 

I will not get into the history of who is right and wrong in this matter as I'm not well enoughversed in that, nor would it end well.

 

But as I see it, this impasse almost has no solution.

The primary reason why Israel hasn't attacked a muslim country is because it is understood that if they do, every muslim country will declare war on them. This is why there was no Israeli led retaliation to SCUD missiles during Desert Storm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

 

Israel has defended against all muslim countries before and was and still is light years ahead of them, they dont declare war because they dont want it, as opposed to many muslin countries who have outright said they want to destroy Israel, we give them military support because boat loads of wheat wont keep them alive.

 

Also, "In 2010, the Israeli government authorized a pilgrimage to Syria by a group of 300 Druze citizens of Israel interested in visiting religious sites there. A group of dancers from five Druze villages in Israel was sent to Aleppo to perform in a dabka competition. Civilians are permitted to cross the border at Quneitra for university studies and marriage. Syrian citizens of the Golan are entitled to free tuition, books and lodging. Since 1993, 67 Syrian brides have crossed into the Golan Heights and 11 brides from Golan have crossed into Syria."

 

you think syria would let them do that the other way around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

 

Israel has defended against all muslim countries before and was and still is light years ahead of them, they dont declare war because they dont want it, as opposed to many muslin countries who have outright said they want to destroy Israel, we give them military support because boat loads of wheat wont keep them alive.

 

Also, "In 2010, the Israeli government authorized a pilgrimage to Syria by a group of 300 Druze citizens of Israel interested in visiting religious sites there. A group of dancers from five Druze villages in Israel was sent to Aleppo to perform in a dabka competition. Civilians are permitted to cross the border at Quneitra for university studies and marriage. Syrian citizens of the Golan are entitled to free tuition, books and lodging. Since 1993, 67 Syrian brides have crossed into the Golan Heights and 11 brides from Golan have crossed into Syria."

 

you think syria would let them do that the other way around?

 

There's a lot of venom in that region that will never go away because of the changing of the borders after '67 and '73, and the unwillingness of either party to compromise.

 

As far as keeping Israel alive....if the US is in the business of preserving underdog nations and insuring parity in world affairs, then why are we indifferent in Africa, South America, and most recently South Korean slaughter? The last one especially since we're so anti-Kim Jong Il, yet that still happened.

 

It's one thing to give lots of aid in natural disasters and what not, but to support a small country to the level that we do and defend them at all costs (with repercussions to boot), there has to be a good explanation why.

The US isn't supporting Israel to ensure an equal playing field...the lobby dictates the terms plain and simple.

 

There are two sides to any conflict, and to think all of the arab countries are all bad and Israel is an unfortunate victim would be misguided.

 

The primary reason why Israel hasn't attacked a muslim country is because it is understood that if they do, every muslim country will declare war on them. This is why there was no Israeli led retaliation to SCUD missiles during Desert Storm.

 

I will not get into the history of who is right and wrong in this matter as I'm not well enoughversed in that,

Clearly...

 

The primary reason Israel doent attack her neighbors is because Israel doesnt WANT to attack her neighbors. The primary reason Israel didnt respond to the Scud attacks in the Iraq war, was because WE BEGGED THEM NOT TO (because of the "Coalition" George Bush Sr. had put together to oust Sadam from Kuwait.... It included the Saudis, and the Jordanians, and the Egyptians, and the UAE, and Quatar... All of who had a vested interest in ousting Sadam.... And all of whom said they would bolt if the Israelis joined the fight.)

 

To the contrary Israel has been attacked by her neighbors 5 times in her short history (and once Israel preemptively attacked when intelligence showed they were about to be attacked AGAIN). In each of those wars Israel kicked the living shit out of all them combined. In 1973, it looked like Israel might actually lose... Guess what? The A4s were strapped.

 

Do you have any idea what resides in Dimona?

 

Hint. There are about 10 Arab cities, which if they were wiped off the face of the Earth, Israel could insure her safety for a few hundred years... At least. And Israel has the capability to erase 200 such cities within a matter of minutes. But... They havn't.

 

The reason the U.S. supports Israel, isnt because of some secret Jewish cabal. Its the same reason we support ENGLAND... And France... And Canada. And Germany. Because they are all modern, western style, liberal democracies, with whom we share common interests.

 

Youre too smart to buy into this silly conspiracy crap.

There's a lot of venom in that region that will never go away because of the changing of the borders after '67 and '73, and the unwillingness of either party to compromise.

 

As far as keeping Israel alive....if the US is in the business of preserving underdog nations and insuring parity in world affairs, then why are we indifferent in Africa, South America, and most recently South Korean slaughter? The last one especially since we're so anti-Kim Jong Il, yet that still happened.

 

It's one thing to give lots of aid in natural disasters and what not, but to support a small country to the level that we do and defend them at all costs (with repercussions to boot), there has to be a good explanation why.

 

Well Africa and South America I think lack liberal democracies mostly. I am not up on the geography of those regions, but I am sure if there was a strong liberal democracy in either of those continents that requested foreign aid to stave off surrounding dictatorships, that we would gladly give it to them. As for slaughter elsewhere, well there isn't a whole lot you can do with Third World nations slaughtering one another unfortunately. A liberal democracy however, especially one with a strong market economy, you can give aid to it and they can defend themselves.

 

Some say that when the genocide in Rwanda occurred in 1994, that the U.S. at least should have sent troops in as some 800,000 people were slaughtered (I don't know what the correct answer is personally, as that might have tied the U.S. up in Africa).

 

On South Korea, well South Korea can defend itself a good deal.

 

On Israel, I'd imagine four reasons:

 

1) Israel is a liberal democracy

2) Israel is a strong ally

3) If ever wiped out, it could be a second Holocaust

4) Israel is a strategic asset that helps maintain stability in the region

Did somebody say we don't support South Korea??? We have 29,000 U S troops on the DNZ. Right there. Right now. Rifles loaded and ready to act as the "tripwire" that they've been for the last 60 years. Its one of the most dangerous billets in the united states armed forces. I suspect Israel would give a nut to have that type of US "aid".

RD... what happens if USA totally pulls everyone everywhere back, and says "Good luck, we need to fix things at home" - hypothetically?

RD... what happens if USA totally pulls everyone everywhere back, and says "Good luck, we need to fix things at home" - hypothetically?

 

Obviously, nobody knows for sure. Which is why we keep them there.

 

I think its a pretty safe bet Korea would be a disaster...

 

We currently have 50000 troops in germany, who I think we could safely withdraw without TOO much risk that the poles will invade.

 

We have a 40000 in Japan who we could probably reduce. There is a threat from China and North korea.

 

But the bigger issue is, as much crap as the people of South Korea, Japan and germany bitch about "yanky go home" if we ever called their bluffs they would BEG for us to stay. One. Those bases are a major boost to their economies. Look what the puerto ricans did when we finally gave in to their constant bitching about the naval bomb range. We said "fine. were out of here" and they said "NOOOOOOO, you just got here!!!! you cant leave!!! whyyyyyyy? ". Everybody likes to bitch about US troops on their soil. Til we leave.

 

Two. There are still real threats to some of these countries and most of them, thanks to the protection we provide, have neglected their own defense for so long that they would be sitting ducks if the shtf.

 

We are the sole remaining super power. Which means we have a choice. Take steps to PREVENT war, or fight them when they happen.

There's a lot of venom in that region that will never go away because of the changing of the borders after '67 and '73, and the unwillingness of either party to compromise.

 

As far as keeping Israel alive....if the US is in the business of preserving underdog nations and insuring parity in world affairs, then why are we indifferent in Africa, South America, and most recently South Korean slaughter? The last one especially since we're so anti-Kim Jong Il, yet that still happened.

 

It's one thing to give lots of aid in natural disasters and what not, but to support a small country to the level that we do and defend them at all costs (with repercussions to boot), there has to be a good explanation why.

 

What does Israel need to fit your definition of compromise? It has returned a majority of land taken as the victor of several WARS...

 

Are you saying the US doesn't support Africa? Are you serious? The one thing Bush never get's recognized for was his MASSIVE contributions in aid directed to Africa (Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa). $9 Billion!!! If you call that indifferent I would be curious to see your definition of "help" then.

 

South America? Except for Venezuela I'd say the US is plenty charitable to S America as well. We give plenty of training to these governments to help battle the FARC, drug lords, and to help those countries governments (Source).

 

South Korean slaughter? If by that do you mean the North Korean torpedo attack and then the subsequent artillery bombardment on South Korea? Are you advocating we return the favor? If so, that isn't our decision. If (and when) South Korea get's fed up with their whiny bitchy spoiled brother to the north and responds in a military fashion the US will be there (we are treaty obligated). But it isn't our place to attack North Korea on behalf of South Korea. Perhaps it would be different if there were US casualties, but there wasn't. I don't think South Korea is prepared to trade the population of Seoul for revenge any time soon.

What does Israel need to fit your definition of compromise? It has returned a majority of land taken as the victor of several WARS...

 

Are you saying the US doesn't support Africa? Are you serious? The one thing Bush never get's recognized for was his MASSIVE contributions in aid directed to Africa (Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa). $9 Billion!!! If you call that indifferent I would be curious to see your definition of "help" then.

To be fair, he did get "mad props" from Bono for it....

South America? Except for Venezuela I'd say the US is plenty charitable to S America as well. We give plenty of training to these governments to help battle the FARC, drug lords, and to help those countries governments (Source).

 

South Korean slaughter? If by that do you mean the North Korean torpedo attack and then the subsequent artillery bombardment on South Korea? Are you advocating we return the favor? If so, that isn't our decision. If (and when) South Korea get's fed up with their whiny bitchy spoiled brother to the north and responds in a military fashion the US will be there (we are treaty obligated). But it isn't our place to attack North Korea on behalf of South Korea. Perhaps it would be different if there were US casualties, but there wasn't. I don't think South Korea is prepared to trade the population of Seoul for revenge any time soon.

 

Now to bring this back into the egypt issue ( we should merge these two threads.... ) REGARDLESS of any treaties, given this administrations ham handed bumbling of foreign protocol, their apparent disregard for historical alliances, and unwillingness to pick sides, can the ROK really be confident we will support them when the shtf? I cant imagine that we have an Allie anywhere in the world, who feels confident that we have their back right now....

We currently have 50000 troops in germany, who I think we could safely withdraw without TOO much risk that the poles will invade.

 

We have a 40000 in Japan who we could probably reduce. There is a threat from China and North korea.

 

I think we could save a shit ton of $ by pulling half or all of the troops out of Germany and other Western EU countries. I DO see somewhat of a need with Japan, if only serve as a launching pad if things go south with China or NK. So right, cut them in half. The troops on the DMZ will never leave, as long as 'Lil Kim is in power. And I don't see Big Kim, who will proceed him, being much different.

 

Between bringing troops home from countries who don't need us, downsizing elsewhere, ending a few costly wars, and downsizing and streamlining the military - I think we could drastically reduce our spending. No one said it won't piss off a few people, but I think it can (should) be done.

 

 

 

I think we could save a shit ton of $ by pulling half or all of the troops out of Germany and other Western EU countries. I DO see somewhat of a need with Japan, if only serve as a launching pad if things go south with China or NK. So right, cut them in half. The troops on the DMZ will never leave, as long as 'Lil Kim is in power. And I don't see Big Kim, who will proceed him, being much different.

 

Between bringing troops home from countries who don't need us, downsizing elsewhere, ending a few costly wars, and downsizing and streamlining the military - I think we could drastically reduce our spending. No one said it won't piss off a few people, but I think it can (should) be done.

You do realize that would create an immediate sizable boost in unemployment, correct?

 

It's easy to bring up all these ideas, but people so often forget the broad stroking ramifications.

You do realize that would create an immediate sizable boost in unemployment, correct?

 

It's easy to bring up all these ideas, but people so often forget the broad stroking ramifications.

 

Well that's the biggest reason no one in Congress wants to (or probably will) cut the budget from the military. Everyone talks about making cuts but when it comes down to it, someone - be it stationed in Germany, on an assembly line making bombs or fighter planes, or someone at a desk - is represented by those numbers. Absolutely I have thought of it.

 

It's difficult and head scratching when so many are talking of decreasing the size of gov't and spending, but then when it comes to actually DOING it - people forget what it really means: Cutting jobs and money that WOULD have gone to someone (be it a corporation or someone's salary) and instead not spending it. "Streamlining, downsizing, effectiveness" are all words that mean cutting jobs. So yes, I completely understand - and it's unpopular as hell. No one will do it - they'd rather cancel a stealth fighter/jet program, cut NASA budget, or other little things.

But at least military serves a purpose. Sure some dont see it now without a conflict they are attending to, but its nice to have a big stick handy before things get out of hand. But the countless number of government employees that muck the whole system up, and make it so you have to fill out 37forms and it takes 15 weeks to get something documented is the problem. The government has too many redundancies. And most of the spending people want cut are the handouts. Stop paying for people to have kids who dont work. Shit like that.

But at least military serves a purpose. Sure some dont see it now without a conflict they are attending to, but its nice to have a big stick handy before things get out of hand. But the countless number of government employees that muck the whole system up, and make it so you have to fill out 37forms and it takes 15 weeks to get something documented is the problem. The government has too many redundancies. And most of the spending people want cut are the handouts. Stop paying for people to have kids who dont work. Shit like that.

Exactly. Cutting welfare spending is a good example of something that will not foresee-ably increase unemployment. Same goes for reducing unemployment handouts.

 

At my company, all our temps quit when unemployment benefits were extended. Talk about a joke.

You do realize that would create an immediate sizable boost in unemployment, correct?

 

It's easy to bring up all these ideas, but people so often forget the broad stroking ramifications.

 

Im a pretty strong supporter of the Armed Forces, however, "cutting unnecessary personnel would raise unemployment" doesnt seem like a good reason to spend tax money. Goverment employment shouldnt be wellfare. We should spend what we need to spend to accomplish the mission. But to just continue spending money because it makes the economy "look" better for the CINC come election time is a waste.

 

 

I may have posted it before, but I have done a calculation where if we CUT the federal, state and local budgets to the point that they match revenues, by firing an equal % of government employees as the % short fall, unemployment would skyrocket. Ill post it later when I get a chance.

 

 

.

Between bringing troops home from countries who don't need us, downsizing elsewhere, ending a few costly wars, and downsizing and streamlining the military - I think we could drastically reduce our spending. No one said it won't piss off a few people, but I think it can (should) be done.

 

How would we streamline the military though? It already is too small as it is. From what I have read, there are areas of bureaucracy within the different branches that could be trimmed however.

Im a pretty strong supporter of the Armed Forces, however, "cutting unnecessary personnel would raise unemployment" doesnt seem like a good reason to spend tax money. Goverment employment shouldnt be wellfare. We should spend what we need to spend to accomplish the mission. But to just continue spending money because it makes the economy "look" better for the CINC come election time is a waste.

 

 

I may have posted it before, but I have done a calculation where if we CUT the federal, state and local budgets to the point that they match revenues, by firing an equal % of government employees as the % short fall, unemployment would skyrocket. Ill post it later when I get a chance.

 

 

.

 

 

"There is only enough real work for about 30% in this country..may be less"

How would we streamline the military though? It already is too small as it is. From what I have read, there are areas of bureaucracy within the different branches that could be trimmed however.

 

Big egos and pride get in the way. You can always trim down bureaucracy, esp. in the military. Of course, it has the MOST bureaucracy of any branch (for various reasons - some of them good).

Big egos and pride get in the way. You can always trim down bureaucracy, esp. in the military. Of course, it has the MOST bureaucracy of any branch (for various reasons - some of them good).

 

I am all for trimming down useless bureaucracy, paper work, and over all queep. But in my rather insignificant two years I have not seen a single career field busting at the seems with overpopulation.

 

In fact, pretty much 90% the opposite (10% is reserved for the incompetent (not undermanned) people who work at Finance & TMO...I HATE YOU!). All the flying squadrons at my former UPT base were critically undermanned. These company grade officers were working harder as an instructor pilot than they ever had to do when they were deployed. The only icing on the cake for the job was they would be home every night with their family...after a 14 hour day triple turning their jets with students trying to kill them each sortie.

 

I would say the military is far from having the most bureacracy of any section of government. I'd say the EPA and half a dozen other government agencies are far worse. The difference is the DOD has massively expensive toys where as other agencies don't.

Capitalism: Un-equal distribution of wealth

 

Socialism: Equal distribution of misery

 

Communism: Socialism with a gun pointed to your head

I'm just fcuking saying.