bho is what he is

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by Vincent

This thread is about what bho is doing, and observations thereof.. And to your point, the reason his being muslim would matter is because if he were muslim his view of the world, and specifically Israel, might lead him to make decisions like the ones he's making.

[revefsreleets]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

Oh please no, say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...07supports.htm

"- Conclusion

The primary motives behind U.S. support of Israel can be explained by Washington's foreign policy aims of securing a Middle East capable of producing a stable supply of oil at a low price that buoys the economies of oil dependent countries. Israel, a state that is dependent on the United States due to its strategic and cultural isolation in a region that is hostile to its existence, can be relied on by Washington to assist in maintaining the status quo by preventing any Middle Eastern country from accruing enough power to alter the regional balance in a way that would damage the interests of the United States and other oil dependent countries."

Honestly, you really should consider that ignore button, if only they had a shut mouth button for you, oh wait, you just pulled your arguments off the top of your head without any real research cause you don't care that much right? Right? Got it. Carry on loser.

Dude, you cited Erich Marquadt. He's one guy...and not an expert in anything. This is akin to posting a wiki article you contributed to and edited the Hell out of. The website he works for is totally obscure. You might as well have cited yourself.

Again, try harder, Jeremy...you're getting a C for effort, but a D- for content here...I can see your composure cracking. You're starting in with the personal attacks (which is how all you guys end up, and I've seen a lot of you over the years). You'll get more and more frustrated and more and more abrasive while your actual arguments get weaker and weaker until you just end up living in "ad hominem land".

Tedious.

I'll give you a homework assignment. Read up on Albert Einstein's role in establishing an Israeli state. Come back after studying that and tell me how big of a role oil played in HIS decision to actively work for Israel.

Erich Marquadt. Jeesh...

[tony hipchest]

in reference to the nfl moving the jets game on the jewish day of atonement, i heard on th radio that NYC has a larger jewish population than israels 3 largest cities combined. i wouldnt be suprised if there were more jews in america than isreal.

which begs the questions.... if the jews supposedly own and run all of our leftist media, and our supposed muslim president is supposedly turning his back on and foresaking them while making love with her enemies, why are they treating him so favorably?

all these conspiracy theorys just arent adding up.

anyways on a sidenote, there are more polish people living in chicago than warsaw.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

You'll have to do better than that or I really WILL start ignoring you, which is a fate worse than death for an attention w hore.....

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

You're starting in with the personal attacks (which is how all you guys end up, and I've seen a lot of you over the years). You'll get more and more frustrated and more and more abrasive while your actual arguments get weaker and weaker until you just end up living in "ad hominem land".

Funny, more irony

The greatest part about this is that I never made a delineation between a tactical or strategical position with regard to Israel and oil. However, you are so quick to disagree with me you just assume I meant tactical. Regardless, whether it is tactical or strategical, as you suggest, it's still about oil.

The U.S. is in the middle east because as Eisenhower said it is one of the most strategically important areas in the world. Why is that? Maybe they have superior sand to our deserts? Maybe it's because they have a shit ton of oil??? DING DING DING, we have a winner!!! So we spend one third of our total foreign aid to have an ally there. An ally in the most strategically important place sounds like a good idea to me.

You too apparently...

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

The partnership with Israel is a strategic one, not a tactical one. We have been and NEED TO continue to be allies with Israel for our own good as well as theirs.

And why do we need to be allies with Israel? Oil. Oil. Oil.

Personally, I'd rather get off the oil and get the rest of the world off it while maintaining our alliance with Israel; the countries in the middle east like Iran and all the rest of the haters will dry up because they build palaces and other BS instead of spending their riches on infrastructure and education. Then they will cease to have money and cease to be a threat.

You should really try not being so angry and spiteful, I'm sure your mother raised you better. We aren't really disagreeing about this unless you say oil is not the basis for the strategic significance of the area, but for whatever reason you hate so you nit-pick and make assumptions. Carry on with the hatred!

Maybe a Jewish source will satisfy you? http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/S...D=1851&IID=517

Lots of strategic talk, must be good sand.

[revefsreleets]

There was oil in the Middle East LONG before the US was so instrumental in helping form the modern Israel. We have had allies there before. We have had other allies along the way. We have other allies there now.

Or are you suggesting that we only started using petroleum in 1948? In fact, if you'd bother to read anything about it, there was extreme resistance to forming an alliance from the start with Israel because the relationship actually JEOPARDIZES our relationship with oil pumping Arab nations. So an arguments could be made that not only are you off, but you are dead wrong. But I won't go there because it's a complex relationship and oil did start to take on a role in it over time...

Bottom line, Jeremy, is you are offering a super simple explanation for an extremely complex relationship, which doesn't surprise me, but I think it's interesting that you won't be moved off your position.

I'm wondering, are you capable of learning about things you clearly have limited knowledge about, are you just banking on the (cough cough) "fact" that you already know everything?

And are you capable of typing a reply to me without some kind of cut or personal attack in it? It would seem not...

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

Bottom line, Jeremy, is you are offering a super simple explanation for an extremely complex relationship, which doesn't surprise me, but I think it's interesting that you won't be moved off your position.

I'm wondering, are you capable of learning about things you clearly have limited knowledge about, are you just banking on the (cough cough) "fact" that you already know everything?

And are you capable of typing a reply to me without some kind of cut or personal attack in it? It would seem not...

Again, the irony is astounding. It's about the only thing about your posts that actually is. Oh and the humor you provide!

What's the strategic, as you suggest, reason for the alliance if not oil? You can lace it with as much vitriol and personal insults as you wish and then say I can't respond without it, it would be par for the course with your posts.

Bottom line is we are in the Middle East because of it's important strategic value, i.e. 2/3rds of the world's oil. Any relationship forged over there, be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc, is to improve our strategic position.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3865983

"As World War II ended, the United States became the great outside power in the Middle East, with three main concerns: Persian Gulf oil; support and protection of the new nation of Israel; and containment of the Soviet Union...Oil has always been the U.S.'s first priority in the Middle East. President Franklin Roosevelt discussed oil when he met with the Saudi king, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, just before the close of World War II.

In case you poo-poo the NPR article (cause don't blame you, you voted for McCain) here's an article saying the same thing from the Cato Institute, I'm sure they meet your favor.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East."


It is simple, we are in the Middle East because of oil. You apparently are the only one who disagrees with that. Any relationship that flows from that presence is guided by the principle of advancing our strategic interest in the oil.

I know it must be difficult to acknowledge I'm right or to, heaven forbid, agree with me, so I won't ask you to. Just keep hating, keep pretending it's me throwing out personal insults, keep pretending as if you don't care, or that I bore you. I assume Jeremy is some guy you had run ins with in the past on the forum and you are likening him to me. I love it when people use the "I've been on this board longer than you" argument. After all you've seen many come and go through the years, right? Must be a long 2 years since you've been on the board. Next will it be I have more posts than you? Ahh how the "mighty" have fallen. Should we call you pot or kettle?

[revefsreleets]

Saying "neener neener neener" does nothing here, so I'll ignore the childish petulant nonsense (not to mention the didantic nature of your posts) and get straight to the flaws in your argument:

You are a one trick pony. Israel and the US are strategic parntners in every sense, and OIL IS ONLY A SMALL PART OF THAT PARTNERSHIP, and certainly had nothing to do with the original formation of the alliance. I'll repeat, leading up to '48, the US was afraid that backing a Zionist State would alienate our relationships with the oil producing nations, which is the exact opposite of what you are asserting. In fact, that relationship DID strain our existing partnerships with Arab states. We took the path of MOST resistence and formed an alliance with Israel IN SPITE of oil, not because of it. You keep using sources about the Middle East in general and then try to shoehorn Israel into those arguments, and the two are not only seperate, they are, in many ways, complete opposites.

You are basically saying that Israel is only valuable to us because it is located close to oil, but that's simply not true. We have a complex and interdependent economic partnership with them. We have a huge Jewish population in the states. Israel is a secular democracy, and, as such, is a natural ally to the US REGARDLESS of it's geographic location.

Look up how much we export to Israel, especially agriculturally. Look up BIRD, TRIDE, USISTC. We have a lot of acedemic connections with Israel (See: BSF, BARD, IALC). Even individual states have close ties with Israel...Hell, my own mayor was over there trying to get Israeli companies to invest in Akron (and he succeeded).

It's quite humorous to watch you myopically argue simply because you feel the need to defend your original (incorrect) argument, then thump your chest and rejoice in a meaningless "victory", but the bottom line is you are wrong. The strategic alliance between the US and Israel began, is, and will continue to be MUCH more than just oil. It's cultural, political, scientific, academic and economic.

I'll give you a quote. When Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin asked LBJ why the US had and maintained such strong ties with Isael when there were only 3 million Jews and 80 millions Arabs in the region, LBJ simply answered "Because it is right".

[SteelersinCA]

I never said there weren't other reasons for the alliance, certainly there are, but what you've done, in your desperate fascination with disagreeing with me, is confuse the issue:

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

Maybe god will give the Jews a new place to call Israel. I got news for you, when we are done with oil, Israel will be on her own. The ole clock is ticking on Israel.

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

By the by, we are not allies with Israel over oil. We are allies with Israel because:

At least in the last 2 posts you acknowledge oil is a part of that alliance. I don't care about why we started our alliance with them, through a series of missteps and because the Middle East is a cesspool of historic hatred, Israel has become a more and more important ally because of the growing disdain of Western civilization and our need for balance in the region. We have even *gasp* disagreed and left Israel on her own on occasion to create that balance.

It's only natural that other minor alliances would sprout up, but again, I'm not denying those. The main and most important reason we are in the Middle East is because of oil. Everything that flows from our presence there is an attempt to remain in control. That was all I was saying. But back to your original reply to my post:

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

A) We need allies in that part of the World regardless Why do we need allies there? We want to control the area because of its significant strategic value and most everyone over there hates us.

B) The US has a HUGE Jewish population...if I'm not mistaken (and, Christ, I'm sure one of my internet stalkers will do the research and throw it back in my face if I am, thereby adding to their phyrric victory total), there are more Jews living in the US than any other Country outside of Israel. I assume this is a reference to the Jewish Lobby, which is a reasonable argument but still pales in comparison to the strategic value of the region.

The partnership with Israel is a strategic one, not a tactical one. We have been and NEED TO continue to be allies with Israel for our own good as well as theirs. Why? Cause giving up control of a valuable strategic asset (oil) would be bad.

You see, if you weren't so angry, it's pretty clear we weren't that far off. The bold is my assumed answers, I figure you got that.

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

You are basically saying that Israel is only valuable to us because it is located close to oil, but that's simply not true. We have a complex and interdependent economic partnership with them. We have a huge Jewish population in the states. Israel is a secular democracy, and, as such, is a natural ally to the US REGARDLESS of it's geographic location.

I never said it is only valuable because of oil, I contend that is the overriding and greatest proportion of that value. I also provided a source to say our #1 priority there is oil.

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

It's quite humorous to watch you myopically argue then thump your chest, rejoicing in a meaningless "victory", but the bottom line is you are wrong. The strategic alliance between the US and Israel began, is, and will continue to be MUCH more than just oil. It's cultural, political, scientific, academic and economic.

I find it humorous one negative comment about OSU has you so ravenously disagreeing with me all over these boards. Our presence in the Middle East is about the oil, the rest is the proverbial icing on the cake. I don't think that is much of a stretch, although I'm sure you will nit pick it or now contend you are bored.

Final note, look at all the big words you're throwing out! I guess this doesn't qualify as a "cut or personal attack" in your view, huh?

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

Saying "neener neener neener" does nothing here, so I'll ignore the childish petulant nonsense (not to mention the didantic nature of your posts) and get straight to the flaws in your argument:

I think you meant didactic there professor; ya get what you give Rev.

[revefsreleets]

(Spelling smack again? Wow...just wow...)

Here, try this.

If we WEREN'T allies with Israel, our alliances with oil producing countries would be easier to maintain.

Will you agree with that?

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by revefsreleets

(Spelling smack again? Wow...just wow...)

Here, try this.

If we WEREN'T allies with Israel, our alliances with oil producing countries would be easier to maintain.

Will you agree with that?

I was hoping you brought that up. No I won't agree with that. As I mentioned previously the Middle East is a cesspool of historic hatred dating back to long before the US was in existence. Having a solid ally there is a good thing. The countries over tehre, save Israel are fickle in there allegiances.

Let me expand your scenario for a moment. Israel is gone, so we have Kuwait , a waning presence in Iraq, a sort of ally in Saudi Arabia and a growing ass itch in Iran and Syria. What happens if Saudi Arabia turns on us, or shuts us down for military operations? We launch everything from Kuwait? Kuwait doesn't have the ability to stand up for itself like Israel does. That scenario only gets worse over time.

I agree your supposition should make logical sense, but there is historically nothing logical about the Middle East other than war and fighting. I think a solid consistent ally over there is crucial to maintaining balance, especially at this point.

Fair enough?