(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message


Israel kicked Arab ass in '67 using French jets and British tanks.
It conquered all the "occupied" territories without any US help.
It's been losing ground literally ever since.

None of which has anything to do with the false claim that we only
provided Israel with aid after deciding to sell advanced weapons to
neighboring Arab nations. Stick with the subject at hand and control
your rants.

The first sale of modern weapons to Israel was with the Hawk sale by
Kennedy in 1962, snip further off-topic ranting

Again, show where the US started providing aid to israel merely in
order to make weapons sales to the Arab nations...or admit that
statement was instead wrong in the first place.


ISrael kicked Arab ass long before the major "bankrolling" began.
In fact, the US had an embargo on both sides until the early '60s.
I'd be happy if that embargo on both sides were reemplaced, provided
that Europe, Russian and China joined in with it. Israel can produce
its own equipment, and only takes the US stuff because it is provided
for so cheap, nearly free. But Merkava II tank is superior to the Abrams
M1A2, and even the USAF uses Rafael's Python-4 (soon Python-5) AMRAAMs.

No, we don't use the Python AAM (and Python is not an "AMRAAM").

Sorry, I meant AAM. I had heard that the US does use the Python AAM.
Was
I misinformed?

Badly. We use the AIM-9 Sidewinder family.


you are zero for two right there. And again, nothing you have said
disputes the fact that US aid to Israel predates the sale of advanced
US arms to the Arab nations.

If that's the case, let the US and its allies stop selling arms to the
Arabs,

That *is* the case. We were providing major aid to Israel LONG before
we engaged in selling advanced weapons to any neighboring Arab
nations, and even then we provided generally less capable systems to
them than we were providing to Israel. And your "if-then" construct
does not make sense--why should we have to tie our policies regarding
Israel to those we use in dealing with other nations? That should be
OUR choice, not that of Israel, or AIPAC, etc.

snip related and illogical diatribe



more or less. That is the real
reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to
Israel,

No, that would be because of AIPAC campaign contributions.

Hardly. Very few rich Jews left in America these days. Most have assimilated
out in the last 20 years.

Nope. But then again, this "rich Jew" bit is your construct, not mine.
I find it generally advisable to stay away from such pedantic
characterizations.

Your characterization that the entire Congress is held captive by a
tiny
number of rich JEws operating through AIPAC is equally ludicrous.

That was NOT my claim--go back and READ the posts. Nowhere have I used
the rather contemptable phrase "rich Jews"--that is YOUR choice of
wording. I am one of those folks who feels it is possible to oppose
some Israeli policies, and many aspects of US aid to Israel, without
it being based upon such inflammatory and bordering-on-racist views as
engendered by that "rich Jew" phrase. My claim IS that AIPAC has more
to do with the lack of Congressional debate on this matter than does
the alleged impact on US defense industry.

snip


If anything, it would be the Christian Right
that would stop arms sales to the Arabs if the US imposed a one-sided
aid and arms embargo on Israel.

They would indeed be a problem in that regard--and this is the very
first uttering you have made which is close to being on-target and
correct. Congratulations--maybe you can now reword your earlier rants
and bring them back into the realm of the discussion at hand.

If there wasn't a single JEw left in America, and no AIPAC, there
wouldn't
be much of a difference. Millions of Bible-believing Christians will
not
allow us to sell the Arabs all the arms they can pay for with the oil
under
their feet, while cutting off all aid to ISrael to help pay for its
own
defense against 100 to 1 numerical superiority. Even if it wasn't
Israel; even
it was Taiwan instead, the fairness of the American give anybody in a
similar posture a fighting chance. Whatever one may say about the
American people, they are innately fair by nature.

LOL! We danged near came close to doing exactly that to Taiwan a
couple of times. The fact is that AIPAC *is* a powerful PAC; sorry,
but that is the case.

snip

Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it
would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off.

Why should it refuse practically free equipment while the US sells $5B
to its enemies annually? That would be nuts.

This started as a case of an individual whining about Israel losing
potential sales due to its dependence upon US systems. If they want to
cut the apron strings, fine--all they have to do is say "no" to the
aid. But taking the aid and then whining about its repercussions is a
bit of the old "having your cake and eating it too".

Alas you are not aware of what is going on inside ISrael. US companies
are
buying up Israeli defense companies and spiriting their engineers away
to California! From the Israeli perspective, it is big America
limiting their
defense industry and cherry picking off the cream of their brainpower!
Raytheon, Boeing, TRW, et. al, are gutting ISrael companies that have
recently
been privatized, luring their best people away, or forcing those who
are
trying to remain independent to relocate as US companies in California
(and elsewhere) thereby moving their corporate headquarters, with all
the
jobs that corporate headquarters usually generate, "offshore" TO THE
US!!!
The US is NOT a sucker country! When it gives with one hand, it
eventually
takes back with the other! I'm not being critical of American
generosity, but
when it comes to business, Americans are not the patsies as some would
want
to believe. The US did not go into business 227 years ago to make a
loss!
Happy Fourth of July.

Oh, please. Other nations have erected protections against foreign
majority ownership of their critical defense industries, and israel
could as well. But Israel does not want to turn off the tap of US aid
dollars, plain and simple. Fine, but don't then come back and whine
about alleged repercussions. As to those alleged cases of Israeli
brain-drain, that is the peril of maintaining open immigration
policies that allow individuals to migrate in search of better
opportunities for themselves. Is that a crime?


Let the US embargo BOTH sides,
and force Europe, Russian and China to do the same. Let the Arab, who outnumber
Israel 60 to 1, produce their own arms the same way Israel does.

Hard to do that, as Israel is a major foreign supplier of military
goods to the PRC. Israel turned its back on Taiwan in order to further
ingratiate itself with the PRC, and Israelis still periodically whine
over the US putting its foot down over their proposed sale of the
Phalcon radar system to the PLAAF for their AWACS program. The loudest
and most shrill scream you'd hear in response to your proposal would
be from the Israelis, who look upon the PRC as a serious potential
cash cow.

So you agree with the above?

Brooks

snip