Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Jul 23, 2014.
No, I suspect not giving Israel 3.6 billion per year in military aid would probably get you there.
I'm not surprised that the small majority of Palestinians want a truce. The problem is, they can't, or don't want to reign in Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other group devoted to the destruction of Israel, western civilization, and any other Muslims who don't agree with their particular interpretation of the Koran.
Well, when they start loving their children and life more than they hate Israel and love death, I would probably go there.
Our government won't no matter what happens because it's a confluence of two of the most powerful foreign affairs lobbies around - the pro-Israel lobby and the military contractor lobby.
Who cares that all we're buying is an ally who doesn't listen to us, and anger from pretty much everyone else in the world, we need to sell military equipment and the US can't use all of it, so might as well just waste our money buying it for Israel, and then letting them use it for things that every other country in the world condemns, instead.
No, no. We should balance it out the aid and let them have an OK Corral shoot out.
The MIC makes out like bandits, we get the Islam world off our backs, and the Jews continue to kick Arab butt, no matter what the odds.
Let's not forget that the money we "give" to Israel for the research has a steep return in that we "profit" greatly from the developed technology. Do you think for a second the Palestinians would share their developed advanced technology with us?
By "share" do you mean attach to the front end of an ICBM and propel it towards us?
I think $3.6 billion a year buys you a lot of good will. So, sure. I'd be Rush Limbaugh's personal viagra caddy or Herman Cain's butler for a fraction of that, and I'd do a damn good job too.
Excuse me if I don't take a sentence using "every other courtry in the world condems" and "Israel" very seriously.
Fair (although I did say "pretty much everyone else," and I'm not sure I'm wrong with the "pretty much" qualifier).
Eastern Europe, the Netherlands, and Italy tend to join the US in voting "no" on some of the UN resolutions (except on the settlement resolutions where the US tends to be the sole "no" vote).
It is less your sentence (every vs. pretty much every) and more the regular double-standard of world opinion on Israel to which I was referring.
Ha!!! That's exactly the type of reciprocity we should expect given the current and historic political climate