Iran soon?

Originally Posted by Wesker

All that being said....whats done is done, and Israel now stands as the only free democratic state in the Middle east and has every right to continue to exist They are a staunch ally of the U.S. and for reasons wide and varied the U.S. is and should continue to be counted on to come to the defense of Israel.

If you consider Palestine a nation-state they're also a democracy. Whether you like the fact that Hamas is in power or not. I wouldn't call Israel "free" either. Did you know that in Israel there's Jews-only highways? Doesn't sound that free to me. With the repression of the minorities and all.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Are they?

If you can think of another word for a state that receives the most military and economic aid from us in a mutual benefitial relationship I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Disregarding Israel's numerous unfriendly actions towards the United States, what treaty of alliance is there between the United States and Israel?

I can only assume you're referring to the numerous espionage cases involving Israel. My response is that both countries throughly compromise each other through the Mossad/CIA. Even though espionage is a "unfriendly" act we still do it to our allies and friends as much as we do it to our enemies.

On the written treaty of alliance I have no clue. History has been definitive on the matter though. Quiet support for most, if not all of Israel's actions ranging from the wars against it's Arab neighbors to the Palestine question has come out of Washington.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

For that matter, what has Israel ever done for us?

Mutually supporting each other's positions in the United Nations. Provided us with a armed military camp in a vital, yet political unstable region. Acted as cut outs for the CIA/Government in such cases such as the Iran-Contra affair. Probably a lot more then either you or I know. Or should know. It's more then just a "Oh my god! Israel controls the U.S." conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Wesker

All that being said....whats done is done, and Israel now stands as the only free democratic state in the Middle east and has every right to continue to exist They are a staunch ally of the U.S. and for reasons wide and varied the U.S. is and should continue to be counted on to come to the defense of Israel.

What are these reasons? Please tell me it's more than 'supporting democracy and freedom'.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

What are these reasons? Please tell me it's more than 'supporting democracy and freedom'.

Israel is a integral part of our defense industries. Not from merely a sales conduct standpoint. But the research, manufacturing, and testing.

That has 'national security' written all over it for both the United States and Israel.

Originally Posted by Watts

If you can think of another word for a state that receives the most military and economic aid from us in a mutual benefitial relationship I'd love to hear it.

Mutual? Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What exactly are we getting back from this "mutual" relationship?

Originally Posted by Watts

Mutually supporting each other's positions in the United Nations. Provided us with a armed military camp in a vital, yet political unstable region.

How is Israel "supporting" the US? We are a permanent member on the UNSC while they are not. So everytime the UN gets around to slaming Israel for defying whatever sanctions the rest of the security council has come up with its always up to the US to cast the veto for Israel. This in turn only generates more animosity towards the US.

Finally, whatever Israel could offer in us terms of an armed military camp probably isn't very valuable to us anyways. If we need airpower in the reigon we could just put a carrier in the Mediterranean sea or the gulf. This is in addition to the various military bases we have in Europe and Diego Garcia. And all of the above are out of reach of Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers. The only value I see in having a base in Israel is merely to field a heavily armed quick reaction force.

Originally Posted by watts

Israel is a integral part of our defense industries. Not from merely a sales conduct standpoint. But the research, manufacturing, and testing.

I don't see what Israel has that our various weapons testing sites here in the US don't have other than live targets.

Weapons systems do need live targets for effective testing, yes. Combat conditions are much more important than testing.

Originally Posted by a_tree

Mutual? Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What exactly are we getting back from this "mutual" relationship?

Well I've already elaborated quite a bit. But eh I can keep going. It is illegal for the US to spy on it's own citizens. (Or it used to be) But it's not illegal for British intelligence or the Mossad to do it now is it? Once the domestic intelligence is gathered it's shared.

Originally Posted by a_tree

How is Israel "supporting" the US?

Don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair do you? All the weapons sales went through Israel.

As far as the UN goes, Israel isn't the only country to do some very unpopular stuff in the United Nations. Bottom line, is that we're both there for each other. We look out for each other's interests no questions asked.

Originally Posted by a_tree

Finally, whatever Israel could offer in us terms of an armed military camp probably isn't very valuable to us anyways. If we need airpower in the reigon we could just put a carrier in the Mediterranean sea or the gulf. This is in addition to the various military bases we have in Europe and Diego Garcia. And all of the above are out of reach of Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers. The only value I see in having a base in Israel is merely to field a heavily armed quick reaction force.

Our Navy is limited. It can't be everywhere at once. Although it certainly tries to be. That aircraft carrier is best suited elsewhere. And why not? We hardly need it there when a close reliable strategic ally is present there for us. You're ignoring the fact that we'd have to violate somebody's airspace in the process of those bombing runs. Take a look at where Israel sits on a map.

Oh, and if we were satisfied with the amount of military bases we had in the Middle East we wouldn't have grudgingly withdrew from the bases we had in Saudi Arabia. Or depending on how you look at it, we wouldn't be building "temporary" bases in Iraq that look quite permanent to some people.

Originally Posted by a_tree

I don't see what Israel has that our various weapons testing sites here in the US don't have other than live targets.

There you go. You said it yourself; live targets. Again, manufacturing is just as important, and having a deniable sales conduct is... essential.

"What? We're selling high tech weapons to China!? No we're not! We gave them to Israel..."

You might not like it, and I might not like it. We're not required too. It's just politics.

Originally Posted by Watts

Well I've already elaborated quite a bit. But eh I can keep going. It is illegal for the US to spy on it's own citizens. (Or it used to be) But it's not illegal for British intelligence or the Mossad to do it now is it? Once the domestic intelligence is gathered it's shared.

And obviously thats why our own intelligence agencies still have conducted illegal wire-tappings. You know, just to piss off the public and whatnot and to look like they're doing something.

Originally Posted by watts

Don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair do you? All the weapons sales went through Israel.

As far as the UN goes, Israel isn't the only country to do some very unpopular stuff in the United Nations. Bottom line, is that we're both there for each other. We look out for each other's interests no questions asked.

You're right, Israel certainly isn't the only country to do unpopular things. But I never said they were. Difference lies in what happens after they commit the act. Where other countries have to face the UN security council's rulings and whatever consequences there might have, all Israel has to do is to sit back and wait for the US to cast that veto. Israel has really nothing equivalent to offer us inside the UN building. Compared to the number of UN resolutions and sanctions the US has helped Israel veto, their support for us is a mere drop in the bucket, then throw in all the heat we get for supporting Israel from the Middle East and all the trouble its caused us, then it becomes a drop in the ocean. As for their bases or whatever...

Originally Posted by watts

Our Navy is limited. It can't be everywhere at once. Although it certainly tries to be. That aircraft carrier is best suited elsewhere. And why not? We hardly need it there when a close reliable strategic ally is present there for us. You're ignoring the fact that we'd have to violate somebody's airspace in the process of those bombing runs. Take a look at where Israel sits on a map.

Oh, and if we were satisfied with the amount of military bases we had in the Middle East we wouldn't have grudgingly withdrew from the bases we had in Saudi Arabia. Or depending on how you look at it, we wouldn't be building "temporary" bases in Iraq that look quite permanent to some people.

You have to keep in mind that while our navy cannot be everywhere at once its certainly unlikely that the rest of the world can come up with enough hotspots that we care about to occupy our entire fleet of carriers (I'm not just considering the CVN carriers but the Marine carriers as well). Israel sits on a tiny parcel of land next to the mediterranean on my maps, whatever airspace restrictions we might have in that area can be easily circumvented through passages over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

Originally Posted by watts

There you go. You said it yourself; live targets. Again, manufacturing is just as important, and having a deniable sales conduct is... essential.

"What? We're selling high tech weapons to China!? No we're not! We gave them to Israel..."

You might not like it, and I might not like it. We're not required too. It's just politics.

Well if live targets is what makes all the difference then so be it...

Originally Posted by Watts

Did you know that in Israel there's Jews-only highways?

That's bullshit. How did you come up with that?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

And obviously thats why our own intelligence agencies still have conducted illegal wire-tappings. You know, just to piss off the public and whatnot and to look like they're doing something.

Well the illegal wire taps are only a recent development. Pretty sure the domestic intel sharing has gone back as far as the end of the second World War. As far as our intelligence services go, we hear about their failures more then we hear about their successes. Who really knows what they're doing anyway? We only get leaks of information about what they're doing.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You're right, Israel certainly isn't the only country to do unpopular things. But I never said they were. Difference lies in what happens after they commit the act. Where other countries have to face the UN security council's rulings and whatever consequences there might have, all Israel has to do is to sit back and wait for the US to cast that veto. Israel has really nothing equivalent to offer us inside the UN building. Compared to the number of UN resolutions and sanctions the US has helped Israel veto, their support for us is a mere drop in the bucket, then throw in all the heat we get for supporting Israel from the Middle East and all the trouble its caused us, then it becomes a drop in the ocean.

You put a awful lot of emphasis into the power and prestige of the UN. Way more then I do anyway. Let's be honest, if the UN could actually do anything of significance the Iranians right now wouldn't be openly taunting them to impose sanctions.

As for the trouble we get from supporting Israel, I figure the powers that be think it's a fair trade for what we receive in return. I don't subscribe to the notion that Israel uses the United States as some pawn they're in complete control of.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You have to keep in mind that while our navy cannot be everywhere at once its certainly unlikely that the rest of the world can come up with enough hotspots that we care about to occupy our entire fleet of carriers

Nothing in life is certain. We have a awful lot of commitments worldwide. That's a pretty large stretch of my imagination to say that we could cover any possible situation that might arise.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Israel sits on a tiny parcel of land next to the mediterranean on my maps, whatever airspace restrictions we might have in that area can be easily circumvented through passages over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq. Exactly what I was thinking.

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Turkey, well that depends on you what you think would happen if Iraq broke up and one of it's successor states happened to be Kurdistan. Given the fact they (the Turks) have been relatively swift in putting down their own Kurdish minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this prevoked some invasion. Regardless Iraq is under our care as some form of a protectorate. So bases to "keep the peace" seem ideal. Why waste a carrier group?

Iraq, uhh does anything really need to be said here on the benefits of the Israeli alliance when it involves Iraq?

Originally Posted by Radical Dreamer

That's bullshit. How did you come up with that?

Is it really that big of a stretch of the imagination? Last I heard, the Israelis were building a security wall around the occupied territories. For security purposes of course. Do you think that travel from said territories is any less controlled or regulated?

Originally Posted by Watts

Well the illegal wire taps are only a recent development. Pretty sure the domestic intel sharing has gone back as far as the end of the second World War. As far as our intelligence services go, we hear about their failures more then we hear about their successes. Who really knows what they're doing anyway? We only get leaks of information about what they're doing.

Do you have any evidence or proof to support what you've said?

Originally Posted by Watts

You put a awful lot of emphasis into the power and prestige of the UN. Way more then I do anyway. Let's be honest, if the UN could actually do anything of significance the Iranians right now wouldn't be openly taunting them to impose sanctions.

As for the trouble we get from supporting Israel, I figure the powers that be think it's a fair trade for what we receive in return. I don't subscribe to the notion that Israel uses the United States as some pawn they're in complete control of.

I am not particularly fond of the UN myself and while the UN certainly is lacking in power (and the backbone) to enforce and to do the things they say they want to do, nonetheless the UN is still a well known and in some ways well respected organization, and so therefore the significance of what we do for Israel inside the UN building isn't really affected by what we think of the UN, or for that matter Iran. Not to mention probably one of the biggest reasons Iran even dares to taunt the UN is because of its oil fields.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the whole US is Israel's pawn nonsense either, I'm merely doubting the whole notion of how we support each other equally (or somewhat equally).

Originally Posted by Watts

Nothing in life is certain. We have a awful lot of commitments worldwide. That's a pretty large stretch of my imagination to say that we could cover any possible situation that might arise.

The chances of there being enough situations around the world that would occupy all of our carriers all at once is slim. For the most part we can simply drop a Marine carrier in the reigon and deploy a few Marines to cool the hotspot (for the most part its what we do anyways). In addition the whole world does not need our constant attention. For example we don't constantly need a fleet off of Europe's shores.

Originally Posted by Watts

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq. Exactly what I was thinking.

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Turkey, well that depends on you what you think would happen if Iraq broke up and one of it's successor states happened to be Kurdistan. Given the fact they (the Turks) have been relatively swift in putting down their own Kurdish minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this prevoked some invasion. Regardless Iraq is under our care as some form of a protectorate. So bases to "keep the peace" seem ideal. Why waste a carrier group?

Iraq, uhh does anything really need to be said here on the benefits of the Israeli alliance when it involves Iraq?

You have a point in pointing out that each of the countries I named are rather unstable. However should something happen in those countries that we needed to take care of we would still need the permission of Israel's neighbors to really be able to deploy anything from our Israeli bases be it land or air. And even if we were to move our assets through the Mediterranean we would still need a Naval presence to carry all of our troops to the target area. Maintaining a forward presence in the area through bases in Israel is no good if we can't really move them.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Do you have any evidence or proof to support what you've said?

Sure, not all of it I'd take to court so to say. Enough evidence for me though. A day or two after 9/11 President Putin was on MSNBC talking about how he was trying to warn the US about the possibility of the coming attacks. Russia isn't exactly our closest ally, but they still handed over domestic intelligence. How complete we'll never know. (Ugh, this is where conspiracies are born) It's still a quite recent example of domestic intelligence being shared. Even among not so close partners.

Maybe what/how I said it came off a little wrong. Is it really that surprising that we share important strategic information with our closest allies? Couple years back, there was a spat in the news about how American intelligence shared some very complete and accurate satallite intelligence with Britain during the Falklands War. I would rate that more important then just some irrelevant domestic intelligence wouldn't you? Especially if it wasn't on a pro-quo basis.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

I am not particularly fond of the UN myself and while the UN certainly is lacking in power (and the backbone) to enforce and to do the things they say they want to do, nonetheless the UN is still a well known and in some ways well respected organization, and so therefore the significance of what we do for Israel inside the UN building isn't really affected by what we think of the UN, or for that matter Iran. Not to mention probably one of the biggest reasons Iran even dares to taunt the UN is because of its oil fields.

You have a point there. It's still is, using our own terminology a popularity contest of sorts. Public opinion still counts in the world. I can agree with that what you said about Iran too. Iran certainly has some leverage on the UN. Sanctions in any case would hurt everybody. Not just Iran.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the whole US is Israel's pawn nonsense either, I'm merely doubting the whole notion of how we support each other equally (or somewhat equally).

Doubt is never a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to be blind to not see how much influence AIPAC wields. But so do a lot of other lobbyist groups in Washington.

You could always ask one our esteemed elected representives what benefits they see in continuing our current relationship with Israel. Probably would get better information then from me... probably. heh.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

The chances of there being enough situations around the world that would occupy all of our carriers all at once is slim. For the most part we can simply drop a Marine carrier in the reigon and deploy a few Marines to cool the hotspot (for the most part its what we do anyways). In addition the whole world does not need our constant attention. For example we don't constantly need a fleet off of Europe's shores.

I've got no idea what our military thinks. But from West Africa, to Asia. To maybe even South America. (President Chavez comes to mind....) That's a heck of a lot of planet to cover. Especially if things go shitty all at once. Big 'if', but I don't doubt that our military has to prepare itself for such situations.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

You have a point in pointing out that each of the countries I named are rather unstable. However should something happen in those countries that we needed to take care of we would still need the permission of Israel's neighbors to really be able to deploy anything from our Israeli bases be it land or air. And even if we were to move our assets through the Mediterranean we would still need a Naval presence to carry all of our troops to the target area.

Last time I checked we had 100,000+ troops in Iraq. Who knows whether that would be enough, but where in the world would the rest come from?

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

I'm back, so time to address some comments.

Quote:

Doubt is never a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to be blind to not see how much influence AIPAC wields. But so do a lot of other lobbyist groups in Washington.

You could always ask one our esteemed elected representives what benefits they see in continuing our current relationship with Israel. Probably would get better information then from me... probably. heh.

AIPAC isn't just powerful, its considered the second most powerful lobby orginization in the US, ranked only behind the AARP. Even the NRA fails to compete against it. There's a difference between being a powerful lobby and one so influential that any major decision in Congress needs its approval. AIPAC ranks as the latter.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Saudi Arabia is much, much more stable than almost any other Middle Eastern country except Israel in many ways. It maintains an extremely capable army and national guard whos land forces can rival any other country in the region, including Iran. It maintains huge investments for keeping up the Grand Mosque and the Hajj in ways nobody can imagine. That alone hugely bolsters the Monarchy's position. In addition, it has led the country very, very well in the past decades. It has presided over enormous economic growth and wealth, and helped its people evolve. The Saudi economy is more resilient than any other in the region, it has proven virtually immune to the damage of terrorist attacks and stock market plunges. Lastly, the current King has a roughly 70-80% approval rating last I heard. US bases in the Kingdom has always been a contentious issue, but at the same time, the government is a respected international authority in the global and especially the Islamic world. It's a much more important and beneficial ally to the US.

So no, Saudi Arabia, while a monarchy, is in fact a very stable and secure country. The Iraq invasion also has no bearing on supporting the royal family, if you learned more about how the country functions, you'd find out that in fact Iraq harms the royal families stability so much more than it helps. The US has two military systems in the country (USMTM and OPM-SANG) to ensure the countries stability, and in any event of a real crisis, the US 5th Fleet and its troops are all in Bahrain, as is an air wing in Qatar.

Quote:

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

America has the entire 5th Fleet in Bahrain, what more protection could you ask for? It secures oil assets everywhere from Kuwait to Oman and is right next to the most critial pieces of oil infastructure in the world - the Abqiaq and Ras Tanura refiners.

Originally Posted by Watts

Sure, not all of it I'd take to court so to say. Enough evidence for me though. A day or two after 9/11 President Putin was on MSNBC talking about how he was trying to warn the US about the possibility of the coming attacks. Russia isn't exactly our closest ally, but they still handed over domestic intelligence. How complete we'll never know. (Ugh, this is where conspiracies are born) It's still a quite recent example of domestic intelligence being shared. Even among not so close partners.

Maybe what/how I said it came off a little wrong. Is it really that surprising that we share important strategic information with our closest allies? Couple years back, there was a spat in the news about how American intelligence shared some very complete and accurate satallite intelligence with Britain during the Falklands War. I would rate that more important then just some irrelevant domestic intelligence wouldn't you? Especially if it wasn't on a pro-quo basis.

I don't know anything about the Russians handing over intelligence to us so I'm not really going to say anything about it. However as with us sharing intelligence with Britian I think its important to keep in mind that we were talking about other governments providing intelligence to us about our own citizens, domestic intelligence. During the Falkland Wars our intelligence was about Argentina, not about British citizens. What we gave Britian was foreign intelligence.

Originally Posted by Watts

Public opinion still counts in the world.

Unfortunately for us each time we help Israel veto a sanction or resolution against Israel public opinion about the US in the middle east takes a plunge.

Originally Posted by Watts

I've got no idea what our military thinks. But from West Africa, to Asia. To maybe even South America. (President Chavez comes to mind....) That's a heck of a lot of planet to cover. Especially if things go shitty all at once. Big 'if', but I don't doubt that our military has to prepare itself for such situations.

Our military does have a lot to keep an eye on, but not all hotspots that spring up will require the immediate attention of a carrier group. And even then, enough hotspots to take away all of our available carriers? I certainly admit it might happen, but I just don't think its very likely.

Originally Posted by Watts

Last time I checked we had 100,000+ troops in Iraq. Who knows whether that would be enough, but where in the world would the rest come from?

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

While our bases in Israel does help in the projection of our forces I remind you again that our presence will mean nothing if we can't use the presence and project our force. We still need permission from neighboring countries to use their airspace and what not in order to strike where we want from our bases. I understand that bases in Israel means freed up CBGs, however those bases are not absolutely essential, and now especially since we've got bases in Iraq and Afghanistan as well (Kuwait too I think? I'm not sure) and finally all this is on top of our permanent Mediterranean naval presence (I can't confirm this at the time of typing up this post but if I find evidence I'll post it). They have the same restraints as CBGs only difference is that if things get too hot a group of rouge gunmen can physically harm those bases.