Bush can count his reliable allies on one hand even after losing a couple of fingers

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
France is about as relevant as...
...Andorra...Tonga...Burkina Faso...Belize...

true.
and bush-cheney-rumsfeld are as "good" as...
...Stalin...Saddam...Mobutu...

[cavebear]

A quote from radio today: "The nut doesn't seem to fall too far from the Bush".

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by axi
Howard is IMO a fascist scum who is treating immigrants like **** just because they aren't white. He does what he does exactly because of the "Yellow Peril".

Apartheid is coming back... (not that it ever was absent in Australia...)

You mean like Greece's enlightened attitude to the Asiatic Turk?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Azazel
Why not? because you're big and strong?

Because Mexicans aren't on Jihad against the United States. The economic health of their country is heavily reliant on trade with the US. They live next door to the most powerful, stable, and wealthiest nation in the world...and have very good diplomatic relations with US. There is no threat of attack, no threat of subterfuge, no threat of war. Many illegal immigrants from Mexico seek not to bomb busses...they seek the hope of a better life. They are theoretically protected from hostile neighbors...but North and South America simply ARE NOT hotbeds of international strife and conflict. Internal unrest yes, but Brazil isn't about to lob S.C.U.D. missiles at Venezuela. We just don't have the same kind of worries in International Relations that you do in the Middle East, we haven't for a very long time. The worst that would happen over here nowadays are increased tarrifs on trade and travel restrictions (Cuba for instance, but even that's changing...slllooowwwly).

That's why it's a bad analogy: it simply doesn't compare.

If I remember correctly, only a few dozen S.C.U.D.s were lobbed at Israel during Gulf War I, and only like three or so actually hit the ground intact (the rest were blown apart midflight and landed as debris...which can do damage). If Israel reacts to conventional warheads again flying its way and moves against Iraq with military forces, there will be strong reaction from the rest of the Arab world. If you're hit by a nuke, anthrax, nerve gas or some other horrid UNconventional warhead, maybe...just maybe, the rest of the Arab world would be a little more tolerant. Don't get me wrong, any nation that is attacked by weapons of ANY sort has the right to defend itself, even so far as returning the favor to the aggressor...

...But we don't live in a playground sandbox where the worst thing we have to worry about is a few bumps and scraps and bruised egos. We live in a REAL world, with REAL weapons that bring REAL death and destruction. No amount of mommy's cookies is going to make it better. Living in the real world, one has to be aware of the political climate surrounding one's immediate surroundings as well as the political climate abroad. Israel is not safe by ANY means, and therefore has to step very lightly with regards to its neighbors. Your Arab neighbors DO NOT LIKE YOU, but the do like getting aid, in various forms, from the US and other Western nations. That is why they "play nicely" when the US is involved...but only just. In keeping with the playground analogy, the political teeter-totter in the ME is very unstable: EVERYONE has to step lightly, not just Israel. For the United States, having Israel follow a more cautious path in regards to aggression against it works very well for both Israel and the US, as well as other countries in the region. If Israel were "encouraged" (re: NOT told to NOT respond, but NOT told TO respond either) to respond, you could do very serious damage to your opponent, and the Arab ME knows it. But they also know that Israel wouldn't be able to keep it up for too long, so they might have the advantage for a short time afterwards. But to take advantage of that inevitability would draw immediate responces from the West...especially from the United States. And there we are: the Arab ME likes having good trade (not just economic trade) with the West, but they don't like Israel, so if they play nice they won't get stung by Israel nor the West, but they also will not tolerate what they'd perceive as "beligerance" on Israel's part. So as long as the US and the West "keeps Israel on a leash" as the Arab nations see it, they cooperate with the West and the US.

Why ANYONE would want to move to Israel given those ugly realities is simply beyond logic and reason. "Choosen people" blah "promised land" blah blah "God is our protector" blah blah blah. I'm sorry, but God isn't about to save you from yourselves: the covenant was for God to protect you from your foreign enemies...not to protect you from your own suicidal political tendancies towards your enemies (re:Arab neighbors).

Speak through your allies in the West, not through your own guns. Let the US and its allies deal with Iraq. You just worry about what goes on INSIDE your (questionable) borders. Let the West play middlemen: it's the safest, least-bloody course of action for you.

[Edan]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

I forgot to address this before, but, when I was talking earlier, I did say Israel had a (debatably) good reason for not responding [It's debateable that the coalition would have broken up had Israel responded, and that it was worth it in the end to lose some of it's detterent effect to avoid complicating the war.]- I was refering to this time around.

If Israel reacts to conventional warheads again flying its way and moves against Iraq with military forces, there will be strong reaction from the rest of the Arab world.

There's always a strong reaction from the Arab world to Israel. However, I see far more danger in Israel not responding to threats. When Israel didn't respond to the threts well enough in 1967, the mood in the Arab world - and by arab world, I mean the vocal Arab population that was calling for Israel's death, as well as the leaders themselves that were continualy pushing each other to commit further and more aggressive acts - was uglier and uglier because they thought there were no consequences to their actions - but in the aftermath of the war, the situation improved because they realized there were consequences.

Consider the US reactions to Al Qaeda. When the US responded to the attacks as criminal acts, the terrorist acts grew, until they reached the point of 9/11. Thats what happens when you don't have a detterent effect - people are more aggressive because they think they can get away with it.

If you're hit by a nuke, anthrax, nerve gas or some other horrid UNconventional warhead, maybe...just maybe, the rest of the Arab world would be a little more tolerant.

Why the hell should Israel care if the Arab world is tolerant when their national soverenty - and survival - is at stake?

...But we don't live in a playground sandbox where the worst thing we have to worry about is a few bumps and scraps and bruised egos.

Except that if someone can give you a few bumbs and scratches without any punishment they can either continue to do that until they are producing the same effect as a nonconcentionattack, or they could lead themselves to believe that there won't be any reprucussions for their actions.

Israel is not safe by ANY means, and therefore has to step very lightly with regards to its neighbors.

It has to tread litely, but it also has to show a detterant strength. Since Israel can't make it's neighbors like it, better that they fear it than that they think it weak.

That doesn't mean fighting for fighting sakes, but it does mean giving a suitable response for an attack against it.

Why ANYONE would want to move to Israel given those ugly realities is simply beyond logic and reason.

Perhaps because people who come from the Soviet Union and Europe and Arab nations and Ethiopia would prefer to live in freedom and in a country where everyone has the same interest in preventing antisemitism and protecting the Jewish people than to return to their lives of persecution?

Speak through your allies in the West, not through your own guns.

The same allies that helped in the 1948 or 1967 wars (as in, not very much)? Israel had to rely on "it's own guns" than through the diplomacy of it's "allies" - and if it hadn't it would be here today.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Edan
There's always a strong reaction from the Arab world to Israel. However, I see far more danger in Israel not responding to threats. When Israel didn't respond to the threts well enough in 1967, the mood in the Arab world - and by arab world, I mean the vocal Arab population that was calling for Israel's death, as well as the leaders themselves that were continualy pushing each other to commit further and more aggressive acts - was uglier and uglier because they thought there were no consequences to their actions - but in the aftermath of the war, the situation improved because they realized there were consequences.

This is not 1967, this is 36 years later.

The rulers of Israel's neighbours today do not want to be overrun anymore. They have learned that fighting the IDF conventionally is a very bad plan.

So what if Israel doesn't respond? Why didn't their lack of response in GW1 lead to more attacks against them from other states?

Because the US and a lot of others were kicking the stuffing out of the attacker. The Israelis did not have to respond. No one was going to draw the wrong conclusion. With US and other forces once again on the ground, and assuming they are on the move, it is likely that Israel's best interests would once again be those of maintaining the lowest profile possible.