I'm more of an isolationist and would prefer NO arms sales, mostly because I don't trust government to sell arms responcibly. If we arm another nation it's not soely for their benefit and it is THAT atitude that often times screws us in the end.

Iran. Iraq. Israel (in some cases). Saudi Arabia.

I see a pattern... and it's a shame the government doesn't... or just chooses NOT to see it.


Why buy the oil when you can subtely control the distribution of it? Sure, war is expensive but if it means maintaining control over one of the BIGGEST oil reserves in the world... why not?

I know saying "it's about the oil" makes me sound like an ignoramous unable to make another point... but our interference in the Middle East really *IS* about oil.

Iraq has a big enough reserve already... but Iraq is already at odds with Iran. Iran feels a natrual right to intervene considering the vecinity of US troops and air craft carriers to their borders and shores. We feel an obligation to protect Iraq (a developing Democracy) from Iran (an incroaching Dictatorship), which leads to bombing and the eventual control of THEIR territory.

Now we have a HUGE percentage of the Middle East's oil under our political thumb...

40 years (this is totally estimated) of ensured foreign oil for the price of 2 wars? That's a bargain at twice the price.

Maybe I am just thinking too hard...


I can't see coexistence. I see either a continuation of this current tension or the eradication of one in a huge, radioactive mushroom cloud.

I think I am a pascimist.

I will say that the Arabs' promotion of peace is reassuring... but I don't think they have made much progress in the last few months.


I think there is... which is what scares me.

Do we create war vicariously through Israel? Or is it the byproduct of our support?

Doesn't tension ensure low oil prices? Doesn't tension create war? War is profitable, especially to the US, the biggest arms dealer in the world.

God this is complicated...

Good point.

Now that the group orgy is over, are folks interested in a serious discussion about the right for Israel's existence? Because the talking points are about the justifications, not the factual evidence.

Israel was created upon the insistence of a political group (Zionists), who felt they needed some land of their own, despite religious scripture forbidding it. Instead of negotiating, it was taken by force (with terrorism used to seal it -- the 1947 hotel bombing is a prime example initiated by Israel's rulers).

A nation established on the basis of terrorism will aspire to use terroristic means to justify it's existence. This is why there can't be peace in that region. Every time Israel tries to justify it's use of terrorism to suppress another population, it's history will keep kicking itself down.

Israel reminds me of the plight of the Native Americans. In many ways the state of Israel and the USA have striking similiarities. The settlers to this new world took by force and terrorism land that belonged to natives, and many years later still have to address how to reconcile the barbarity that happened to the natives (as Britain is trying to do with the effects of it's colonization). The USA won't give the land back to the Native Americans, as Israel won't to the Palestinians (even if it was possible).

So what does that leave us?

If neither is willing to undo the land grabs by returning the land, the only other moral and ethical solution is to compensate for the trangressions. Money itself would not do, as it'll be spent without regard. Some other method (e.g., a statehood tax paid to those who were oppressed is a good work around) could compensate for the inbalance of the economy and social gains (e.g., trade and educational access).

The fact of the matter is, people are being oppressed (Native American reservations are horrid places of despair, as the refugee camps in Palestine). That must end as humans are suppose to be better than animals, and give a justification for being called human. Equality and tolerance aren't buzzwords, they justify being human and having a civilization. To do otherwise is to devolve to being worse than beasts (who have an instinct to care of their own) living in a pig stye.

Instead of just justifying a state's existence, the focus needs to be spent on how to compensate for displacing natives --by force-- and address those grievances in a sane and humane manner. Until that is done, there will be no peace (Zionists know this and why they stall any peace talks with the Palestinians), as oppressed people will always rebel -- look at our own forefathers for great examples! and it'll be an albatross around the necks of the oppressing nation's conscience.

I think Israel has the right to exist--within it's UN mandated, pre-1967 borders. In other words, it has to withdraw from the West Bank IMO.
It is an occupying nation, and is the principle point of contention between Arab nations and nations who support Israel, primarily the United States.
It was strategically sensible for the U.S. to support Israel during the Cold War; it makes no sense for us to support it now, the highly influential Jewish lobby in Washington D.C. notwithstanding.
The United States must pressure Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.

A good example of the initiatives each country must take.

We must try, though.