|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
July 3rd 03, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. 
|
|
#3
July 3rd 03, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message om...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Brooks
|
|
#4
July 3rd 03, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the aggressor in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of arming terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.
|
|
#5
July 4th 03, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, IIRC the date for the AWACS sales, not to mention the other advanced arms going to Arab nations, was in the *80's*. Which is quite a bit AFTER we had already been bankrolling Israel. So your argument that all of the aid was quid pro quo for sales to the Arabs appears to be baseless. 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. because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states Logic fault. If, as this thread posited, Israel *refused* aid, then it would be unlikely that the Arab nations would also be cut off. which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Oh, please. Israel was in cahoots with the Brits and French in 56, and had its own territorial objectives for the fight. Claiming otherwise is just plain wrong. You can list Arab provocation as *one* of the reasons for the 67 War, and you can lay the 73 War squarely on Arab shoulders, but 56? Gimme a break... Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. Stretch much? nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Mr. Begin disagreed with you. And went on public record in the Israeli press at the time with that disagreement. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. No, it is not. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. You are getting your Iraqis mixed up, aren't you? But hey, since you can't even accept Mr. Begin's words, that is hardly surprising. since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the aggressor in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of arming terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat. $3 billion? Methinks you are lowballing quite a bit: "For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion." Source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? Face facts--Egypt is not a serious threat to Israel. And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. I just saw a report of economic development projects, etc., the other day--rather impressive. See: http://www.usaid-eg.org/ But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt But nobody has been bellyaching about how the US aid to egypt is such a "burden" to Egyptians. So why cut their aid? and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. Except those that Israel wants to sell to, right? How about Israel stops selling to governments that pose a potential threat to the US (like the PRC) in return? If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Sorry, but Israel would want each of those thin dimes regardless--hard to wean a pig after it has suckled at the teat too long. Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The israelis don't HAVE any M1 tanks, FYI. The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, What do you call those free patriot batteries, and the US-funded Arrow? could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....and the Israelis already HAVE nukes. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Bull. Pure, unadulterated BS. Even the israeli government does not put out this kind of farcificial nonsense. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom. More pure BS. Brooks
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Hybrid Mode
