Train Wreck Ahead?

well arent we the racist little muslim bootlick

So your saying it should be enough for the Israeli's that if all or some of their population gets wiped out by an Iranian nuke, the U.S. will nuke Iran back? Yeah, why doesn't that sound comforting?

So the Israelis can feel safe knowing that if they get wiped out by an Iranian nuke, at least the U.S. will nuke Iran back for them? I am sure that is the sort of comfort they are looking for.

Yup. We've spent six years fighting Israel's war in Iraq (maybe more like fifty years if you really go back and look at the CIA support of Saddam Hussein against Iran before he became our enemy), and that's gone just disastrously. Not one Israeli served as a member of the Coalition forces. Israel can fight its own wars from now on, is my feeling, if they don't want to declare their nuclear program or give up the Greater Israel bullshit or do anything else that would reassure me that they're acting right.

Iran is only looking for good time. Is not easy, having good time.

One of the few really good reasons I can see to not dissolve the alliance is that I expect that Israel might just freak out and decide to preemptively nuke its neighbors. They hold most of the power in the region, but of course they can't see it. And, as the recent operations in Lebanon and Gaza show, they certainly cry hard enough when one person gets killed that they feel the only way to solve the problem is to kill hundreds or thousands in retaliation.

It's fear - panicked, terrified fear. "One of us has died, so the rest cannot be far behind." And then they fail to realize the extent of their own power - or maybe they don't - and go brutally killing to the tune of many times their own losses, just to feel less afraid. I'm tired of supporting that fear.

The terms of our alliance with Israel have fostered an attitude in that country like that of a terrified, spoiled child that cannot stand on its own two feet. And it's rather rightly enraging everyone else in the region - if someone treated us like we and Israel treat them, we'd be at war in a heartbeat. Now, I absolutely do not claim that the Arab nations surrounding Israel don't suffer from problems of corruption, or that they act right in dealing with his conflict either. But their anger is understandable in light of a hundred years of Israeli settlement that refuses to acknowledge anyone but "God's chosen people" - i.e., them.

Why bother looking deeply at yourself when you're one of the "chosen people"? Obviously, everything you do is right, because you have God's blessing - at least, that's the undercurrent in Israel's attitude that no one wants to bring up. Modern Israel, very much like George W. Bush, is so convinced of its own rightness that any attempt to get them to step back and look at what they're actually doing meets with a mental block and cries that "if you're not with us, you must be against us". And at this point the Arab hardliners are just doing the same thing, so no progress can be made.

It's sad. I'm tired of watching people who are convinced that they're God or Allah or whoever's chosen act like children because their belief system encourages this mindless "whatever we do is right" mentality. And it's very, very hard to make a *** in that kind of belief system. If you're always right, why listen to anyone else when they cry that what you're doing is wrong? Obviously, THEY must just be wrong and incapable of recognizing your beauty and grace. It's enough to make one sick.

No, it's not. This is the kind of modern Jewish neuroticism and paranoia that drives me up a wall. What it would mean is that Israel might have to learn what it's like to stand on its own two feet for once and stop bullying its neighbors. Yes, I do realize they don't particularly act right either, but two wrongs don't make a right and Israel has the most power in the region thanks to our decades of military and financial aid.

Really, Israel is reaping what it's sown where its neighbors are concerned. From the first aliyahs (migrations) back into the region early last century up right up to today, Israel has had plenty of chances to try to live side-by-side along the Arabs and establish some kind of rapport with them. But they didn't. From day one the Israeli attitude has been "this is our land, now you get the *** off it". And then the Israelis are surprised when the people who'd been living there since the Jewish exodus two thousand years ago want to kill them as a result of having been thrown off their land. Israel made its bed - it acts victimized now that it has to lie in it . We and France and Britain helped them make that bed via the various coups and black ops we've supported over the last century - Mossadegh's overthrow in 1948 in Iran, Saddam Hussein and his CIA support from 1960 or so onwards, our support of the Saudi regime and our overlook of their own human rights issues, and et cetera. But we don't have to do that anymore. We can make a break with the kind of Western attitudes that treat Arabs and non-Israeli Middle Easterners as something less than people, and we SHOULD make that break.

I don't support throwing Israel COMPLETELY to the mercy of the region and its neighbors, but its policy needs to change, and change drastically, if it wants to remain allied with the United States.

President Eisenhower seemed to think that it was, and was closely observing the results of what occurs when the US stood back and let everyone ''have at it''. The 1956 war appeared to have Israel on the ropes enough that the tough talking Nasser of Egypt ,backed by Soviet arms, decided to nationalize the Suez Canal. Here Ike did two things expertly. First,telling Israels Ben -Gurion to butt out and withdraw from the northern Sinai, then,sending a carrier-based task force to the region telling Nasser in no uncertain terms that Cairo would be made into more rubble than the Valley of the Kings and we would still retake the Suez. Everyone backed down for a time and that was that. This was one of Americas finer periods in the region of acting as neutral broker on both sides. This Ike-like neutrality demands on the portion of Obama that he not get too chummy with either side, and if Syrias Assad or the Iranian mullahs or the Abbas Pali factions get out of line and seek the destruction of the state, then all Obama need do is pull a Nixon, who sent US fighters acting as a virtual last-minute cavalry manned by IDF pilots that crushed the Egyptian armour in the Sinai in 1973. Thus Obama need consider neutral diplomacy until a ''redline'' is reached, either by continued Israeli settlement in the West Bank or Golan, or by Islamic perfidy that brings on a general war that no, America would not be able to ignore [anymore than Clinton did with a Kosovo that posed absolutely no threat to the US, Reagan with Lebanon,or a succession of US presidents with Vietnam who used ''dominoes'' much like the Bush administration did with Iraq ''wmd''].