Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

One of the aggressors, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was Egypt. I guess we are still paying for that peace.

Also, Israel DOES do much of our dirty work. They took out Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980 I believe. They sat and took SCUD missile attacks in the early 90's and did not retaliate at our request.

When the time comes to take out Iran's nuclear power attempt, it will not be US planes. It should be, but it won't because we do not have the backbone for it. We will publicly give a lukewarm condemnation, but behind the scenes we will be happy that it was done.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

BTW, it appear that the next thing the Iranians want from Russia is anti-aircraft missiles.

Galway, it is my understanding that the Germans shifted their bombing focus in the BoB from military to civilian targets in the hope that doing so would weaken the will of the Brits. When that didn't work, for the reasons you spelled out and the backbone of the British people, they then set about developing the V2 and V1. These were to be "terror" weapons.

Splitter

[swiss]

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

I would suspect that a terrorist type attack is more likely than a missile attack. Get one into the country secretly and set it off.

Or, also likely, a dirty bomb of some sort. Such destructive power would be very dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands, like Hamas. Since the Iranian regime supports anyone who opposes Israel, it is quite possible that they would try to employ such weapons through a third party.

If there is another theory I would like to hear it .

EDIT: I guess the hope would be that any effective attack would set the Middle East aflame and lead other countries to join in wiping out Israel. That probably would not happen, rhetoric aside.

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

If there is another theory I would like to hear it .

Splitter

It's something in between.

I don't have time now, I need cigs and groceries, but I'll see what I can dig up tonight, documents and stuff.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

I am glad we got that squared away, then. The reason I brought this up is that in common English, giving military support to a well off nation is not considered "foreign aid", rather "military alliance". Claiming the US is a major foreign aid contributer is only possibly by redefining military alliances to go under the heading of aid. Also, if you consider the size of the American economy, the US is actually a minor contributor (13 million against a GDP of 14,256 billion, while e.g. Norway contribute 1,8 billion against a GDP of 383 billion). The myth of the US as a major contributor is just that, a myth. The US is a sovereign nation and can spend their money as they see fit, but I do object to the obvious newspeak to cower the fact that their politics is mostly stick and very little carrot.

The next myth I'd like to point out is the notion of Israel as some kind of underdog under threat from their neighbours. Even a cursory glance at the development of the Israeli map shows otherwise. Note that the US only became a close alley after the 1967 war, so all previous expansion Israel managed perfectly well on their own. The idea of all other Middle Eastern nations being ready to attack Israel is also false. In reality the only outspoken enemies of Israel are Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestineans. As noted, the remaining are mostly rhetoric, particularly considering all other Middle Eastern states are to some degree allies of the US. Just to top it off, Israel have nuclear arms, making any nation-against-nation war unthinkable. In reality, Israel is top dog in the area, free to attack and bomb neighbouring states with impunity.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

I a not surprised. The few Jews I have met (Israeli and non-Israeli) are not to pleased with the "speciel US/Israeli friendship". In their estimate, the dynamic of the alliance stops bout Israel from dealing with certain serious internal political issues and stops bout states from having a meaningful relationship with Israels imediate neigbours.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I am glad we got that squared away, then. The reason I brought this up is that in common English, giving military support to a well off nation is not considered "foreign aid", rather "military alliance". Claiming the US is a major foreign aid contributer is only possibly by redefining military alliances to go under the heading of aid. Also, if you consider the size of the American economy, the US is actually a minor contributor (13 million against a GDP of 14,256 billion, while e.g. Norway contribute 1,8 billion against a GDP of 383 billion). The myth of the US as a major contributor is just that, a myth. The US is a sovereign nation and can spend their money as they see fit, but I do object to the obvious newspeak to cower the fact that their politics is mostly stick and very little carrot.

The next myth I'd like to point out is the notion of Israel as some kind of underdog under threat from their neighbours. Even a cursory glance at the development of the Israeli map shows otherwise. Note that the US only became a close alley after the 1967 war, so all previous expansion Israel managed perfectly well on their own. The idea of all other Middle Eastern nations being ready to attack Israel is also false. In reality the only outspoken enemies of Israel are Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestineans. As noted, the remaining are mostly rhetoric, particularly considering all other Middle Eastern states are to some degree allies of the US. Just to top it off, Israel have nuclear arms, making any nation-against-nation war unthinkable. In reality, Israel is top dog in the area, free to attack and bomb neighbouring states with impunity.



I a not surprised. The few Jews I have met (Israeli and non-Israeli) are not to pleased with the "speciel US/Israeli friendship". In their estimate, the dynamic of the alliance stops bout Israel from dealing with certain serious internal political issues and stops bout states from having a meaningful relationship with Israels imediate neigbours.

Yes Petter, its strange how the majority of US citizens are taken in by the media perpetuated fantasy that they are somehow the 'kindest people on Earth' *TM*, nowhere near in fact. as you point out proportionally the Scandinavian countries are by far the biggest givers. I'm pleased to say the UK is not too far behind. The US relative to their massive wealth are in fact extremely tight fisted. Over to you, President Jimmy Carter;

"when I travel in a foreign country, particularly Africa, my wife and I have been in 110 different countries, our nation is not looked upon as a champion of peace and as the most generous country on earth. In fact, we are the stingiest country on earth. Every time a Norwegian gives a dollar in foreign assistance for needy people, we give three cents."

Never mind, way OT, carry on.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

Yes Petter, its strange how the majority of US citizens are taken in by the media perpetuated fantasy that they are somehow the 'kindest people on Earth' *TM*, nowhere near in fact. as you point out proportionally the Scandinavian countries are by far the biggest givers. I'm pleased to say the UK is not too far behind. The US relative to their massive wealth are in fact extremely tight fisted. Over to you, President Jimmy Carter;

"when I travel in a foreign country, particularly Africa, my wife and I have been in 110 different countries, our nation is not looked upon as a champion of peace and as the most generous country on earth. In fact, we are the stingiest country on earth. Every time a Norwegian gives a dollar in foreign assistance for needy people, we give three cents."

Never mind, way OT, carry on.

I was waiting for someone to bring "Smiley" into the discussion lol. Carter was a disaster as president and nearly as detrimental in his post presidential life. I WILL give him the fact that he has an organization that does a wonderful job building affordable housing (I've even volunteered for that and I think the man is an embarrassment).

We have a group here in American that we call the "Blame America First" brigade. Some of you would love them . Carter is pretty close to the top of that list. He did more to harm the US in his four years both economically and mentally than any president in history.

There is a reason the Iranians held onto the hostages for 444 days but then magically decided to release them as soon as Carter was out and Ronald "the bombing will begin in 15 minutes" Reagan took over.

Even the Democrats cringe when they talk about him. Don't expect to be seeing him on any currency any time soon .

BTW, I too wish we would do away with our foreign aid programs. Even the recipients have no loyalty and, as you all have pointed out, it will never be enough to change the impression of the US in some parts of the world. We are beyond broke anyway.

I am sorry, guys, but you have the wrong impression of the American media. We have three major television networks, all are left of center and part of the blame American first brigade. Of the cable networks, two are extreme left wing. The two you probably see are CNN and FOX...CNN is about as far left as FOX is right. Of the remaining newspapers, probably 9 of 10 are leftist. The left in this country is not "pro USA" and the leftist media outlets far outnumber the right.

If any indoctrination is going on with our youth, it is through our schools and media....all dominated by the left and for the most part agreeing with you.

And this goes back to pre-WWII mentalities. "It's not our war" as a mantra.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

I am sorry, guys, but you have the wrong impression of the American media. We have three major television networks, all are left of center and part of the blame American first brigade. Of the cable networks, two are extreme left wing. The two you probably see are CNN and FOX...CNN is about as far left as FOX is right. Of the remaining newspapers, probably 9 of 10 are leftist. The left in this country is not "pro USA" and the leftist media outlets far outnumber the right.

'Leftist' in comparison to what? How exactly was this astonishing revelation arrived at? Or is it just the opinion of someone on the right...

I notice you criticise Carter (an easy target), but don't actually answer the point raised about US foreign aid. Then again, you seem to do this with any objection to your comments.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

'Leftist' in comparison to what?

LOL ... reminds of my time on a Student Union back in the 70's when two factions were fighting over control of the national body and got to the point of fire bombing each others cars and houses

The two factions fighting it out ? ... the Maoists and the Leninists
I was regarded as fairly centre/right being an anarchist at the time.

With a few exceptions like the KKK and the odd crackpot Christian blowing up abortion clinics, American politics tends to cluster around the middle.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

LOL ... reminds of my time on a Student Union back in the 70's when two factions were fighting over control of the national body and got to the point of fire bombing each others cars and houses

The two factions fighting it out ? ... the Maoists and the Leninists
I was regarded as fairly centre/right being an anarchist at the time.

With a few exceptions like the KKK and the odd crackpot Christian blowing up abortion clinics, American politics tends to cluster around the middle.

Well if the left is totalitarian and the right is anarchy with democracy smack in the middle, our country was founded right of center (republic). However, the movement currently is toward socialism which is obviously about that same distance left of center.

It's true that we have few communists/Nazis and fewer still anarchists. Our politics generally go from socialist on the left to "constitutionalist" on the right.

We swung about as far left as we have ever been thanks to Bush's second term and are pretty far down the road to socialism. Now the rubberband is snapping back and our legislative body will probably be right of center after November. Obama's approval ratings are in the Bush second term range so chances are he is a one term president....just like Carter.

BTW....people need to stop calling Nazi's "right wing". They hang out on the extreme left with the communists. The extreme right is reserved for anarchists with no government involvement.

(So how were you slightly right of center as an anarchist? lol. Cool anecdote)

Splitter