Obama: He's Bush, but blacker.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCC
  • Start date Start date
From what I understand, Israel having nukes is one of the reasons why we supply them.

They import some very vital high end/ high tech weapons from the US (Missile defense systems and aircraft for example) because they are in a constant state of cold war with the nations that invaded them just after their formation, as well as being in an indirect but very bloody war with Syria and Iran's surrogates. They lack the infrastructure to produce what they want in the amount they need in the form of weapons, so they import.

Even as well armed as they are and the fact they have nukes, the attacks from hezbolah and hamas still happen and Iran still saber rattles about wiping them off the face of the earth, etc. etc.

Since they do have these nukes, we don't want them getting into a desperate enough situation (by the US halting arms trade and their military getting weak and/or enemies getting bolder and ramping up hostilities) that Israel decides they have to use nukes against petro funded terrorist groups/ nations.

In simple speak, we don't want them backed into a corner with a finger on the button. That could ruin everyones day far worse than this most recent conflict.
 
Relic said:
From what I understand, Israel having nukes is one of the reasons why we supply them.

They import some very vital high end/ high tech weapons from the US (Missile defense systems and aircraft for example) because they are in a constant state of cold war with the nations that invaded them just after their formation, as well as being in an indirect but very bloody war with Syria and Iran's surrogates. They lack the infrastructure to produce what they want in the amount they need in the form of weapons, so they import.

Even as well armed as they are and the fact they have nukes, the attacks from hezbolah and hamas still happen and Iran still saber rattles about wiping them off the face of the earth, etc. etc.

Since they do have these nukes, we don't want them getting into a desperate enough situation (by the US halting arms trade and their military getting weak and/or enemies getting bolder and ramping up hostilities) that Israel decides they have to use nukes against petro funded terrorist groups/ nations.

In simple speak, we don't want them backed into a corner with a finger on the button. That could ruin everyones day far worse than this most recent conflict.
Click to expand...
The U.S. gave them the nukes, the U.S. gave them everything. The U.S. formed the country, the U.S. relocated those who gave in to being uprooted and got rid of the ones that didn't, the U.S. gave them the money for fighting off the people that were pushed out of their own country to form Israel. In fact:

History of the Nation of Israel

U.S.: Hey, guys, we're splitting Palestine into two parts to create a homeland for our buds.
Palestine: Yeah, yeah, wait- what?
Israel: Hi guys, this is ours now.
Arabians: We don't really like this plan-
*Israel slaughters Arabians*
U.S. and Israel: 😀

then a few years later:

Israel: Hey guys, feel like expanding?
U.S.: Sure thing, you give us some great leverage for controlling the Middle East. We'll show them to mess with Western "civil"ization!
Palestine: Man, you're taking more stuff?
Israel: Quiet, you.
Palestine: 🙁
*Israel and U.S. give each other brohugz*

Of course, then Israel decided that it was going to go further past the borders that it had established in the Partition Plan AND in the wars throughout the decades, so the citizens of the Gaza Strip elected a government, Hamas. This led to some pretty major media coverage over in the U S of A:

Israel: Hey, the Gaza Strip have a government and they're saying all this stuff about us not being able to go in and kill Palestinians whenever we feel like it.
U.S.: No problem bro, we'll call them terrorists on TV and everything will be copacetic. Nobody will care that they're an elected government and that you're actually a U.S. backed terrorist state.
Israel: Aw, I love you man.
U.S.: C'mere, you little rascal.
*they play-wrestle*

So, sure, there's the occasional

Iran: ALLAHU AKHBAR
Arabians: ALALALALALALAHEEEEEEEE!

anti-Israel war cry, but the problems are deeper than Iran being a big naughty and Israel having its back up against the wall. Israel is a U.S. creation and the U.S. likes having it there as a way of keeping a grip over the Middle East (but now it wants Iraq and Afghanistan too as a security measure, like making backups of your important files).

I should teach History in schools.
 
R
Relic
actualy it was the league of nations post WW1 and then the United Nation post WW2. the inception had a lot to do with Britian more so than the US.
Wow, if it was only that easy, it would be easier to point a finger and set things right. If you would like another view with a few historic facts thrown into the mix, go here. http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

It details on how in WW1 the ottoman empire hooked up with germany to fight the Allies. They lost and their territory as a loser was siezed...basically given to Britian. then politics came into play...well read it for yourself. I'd be intrested to see what you agree and disagree with it on.

I'm also wondering what credible source you have that says the US gave Israel nukes. That would be very, very disapointing to me. I'm sorry, but iIcan't go by your word alone that this happened. As far as I know the source for and the amount of nukes Israel has is unknown. All that is known comes from a spy who worked in the country developing its nuke program, which runs counter evidence that they were simply given everything if they need to R&D it.

here's a quick link about that spy and some more 'info' on their program. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
 
Relic said:
Wow, if it was only that easy, it would be easier to point a finger and set things right. If you would like another view with a few historic facts thrown into the mix, go here. http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

It details on how in WW1 the ottoman empire hooked up with germany to fight the Allies. They lost and their territory as a loser was siezed...basically given to Britian. then politics came into play...well read it for yourself. I'd be intrested to see what you agree and disagree with it on.
Click to expand...
I know that the British owned the land and that the Zionists of Great Britain raised a big kerfuffle about having a Jewish homeland, but I was mainly referring to the partition, and the U.S. being the first country to recognise the state of Israel and President Truman's support of Israel et cetera.

As for lacking legitimacy or giving a one-sided argument, I'm a vociferous leftist, we love bias. We thrive on bias, especially anti-Israel bias, it's like our form of cookies.
 
Of course the US was the first to recognize them, they were basically a creation of our biggest ally, Britain. But the US and Israel have not always saw eye to eye...over nukes for example.

The state formation was a UN decision though, and the Russians were onboard with it as well- rather strongly.

It was a global decision and yes, the US was and is a superpower, but we were not the only one at that time.

The reason why I doubted your claim about the US giving Israel nukes is because (unless it was all for show) when the US found out Israel was developing nukes, there was a big strain on their relationship.

Also, It was actually the French that armed up the early nation of Israel and got them started with nuke power plants; the US had nothing to do with it early on except in a restraining fashion of not wanting them to have it..... and leveraging political power to try and influence their decision to stay away from nukes.

It's not that I question your character or legitimacy or anything, I just question the source of your information. Don't feel bad about that...as a conservative who is distrustful of government and corporations I question my own source of information as well... part of the reason why I'm talking to you, actually...curiosity you know?
 
JCC said:
As for lacking legitimacy or giving a one-sided argument, I'm a vociferous leftist, we love bias. We thrive on bias, especially anti-Israel bias, it's like our form of cookies.
Click to expand...


That statement gives leftists a bad name. I consider myself to be to the left and I still force myself to weigh both sides of any arguement. Do you really expect people to take you seriously if even you, deep down don't respect your own opinions? I don't get it.

Uncle Rory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom