102 replies to this topic

[Tom Henrik]

Sinke, on Aug 6 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

And we all know how Ottoman empire ended.

We do?
Now I feel stupid

[A. J. Raffles]

Tom Henrik, on Aug 7 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

Sinke, on Aug 6 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

And we all know how Ottoman empire ended.

We do?
Now I feel stupid

It was converted into sofas, of course. Next question, please.

[Stroggy]

A. J. Raffles, on Aug 7 2006, 09:08 AM, said:

It was converted into sofas, of course. Next question, please.

And obese german children called Otto.

Sinke, you haven't answered my questions.

[A. J. Raffles]

Stroggy, on Aug 7 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

A. J. Raffles, on Aug 7 2006, 09:08 AM, said:

It was converted into sofas, of course. Next question, please.

And obese german children called Otto.

Obese German men. Hence Ottoman.

Ahem. Sorry. Carry on...

[Sinke]

Stroggy

Quote

You say the aid Egypt is getting shouldn't be counted as aid because it is in return for peace (as a "bribe" you state it) what is the money, then, and would you care to explain further how that money does not count as foreign aid, even though it is stated by the US as being foreign aid (as opposed to the non-existent term of "financial encouragement to preserve peace-keeping policies").

I believe this is the question you want me to answer more directly. I touched the subject in my last post, where I claimed ( and I continue to do so ) that it is irrelevant how you call aid to Egypt. On paper, it is foreign aid. In reality, it is a bribe.

On paper, conflict in Iraq is not considered a war. It is called "military activity of US troops" ( George Bush's words ). If it were war, US would suffer economical sanctions. But Bush attacked without implying diplomatic declaration of war, and UN played numb, watching how US is breaking apart more than Iraq does.

China is expected to invade Nepal, but it won't consider it a war- since it believes Nepal is "rioted county" and military influence in that county isn't international conflict but taking care of bunch of rioters. But it is war nevertheless.  

But, to answer on economical fields ( which are topic here )- you would be surprised how many countries joined Allies in WW2 only because of fruitful economical contracts signed with them. Nobody could find a single letter speaking about the alliance, but historians are definitive that those contracts were signed with war declaration  on the other side of the table.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Sinke, on Aug 7 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

watching how US is breaking apart more than Iraq does.

Yeah, all the car bombings over here are really starting to get me down.
Or something.

[Sinke]

Fruit Pie Jones,
It was irony, but I accept your remark. What I wanted to say is that after USA broke literally all the values it stood for, it is all downhill for it now.

[Stroggy]

Sinke, on Aug 7 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

On paper, it is foreign aid. In reality, it is a bribe.

Well in that case I say US foreign aid  to Israel is actually a military alliance forcing Israel to share important scientific (military) breakthroughs with the US alone. In which case you can't say Israel is receiving foreign aid from the US, as it is only foreign aid on paper but something completely different in reality.

[A. J. Raffles]

Sinke, on Aug 8 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

Fruit Pie Jones,
It was irony, but I accept your remark. What I wanted to say is that after USA broke literally all the values it stood for, it is all downhill for it now.

But isn't it still overgeneralising a bit? I mean, what exactly are "all the values" the US stood for/stands for? And what do you mean by "the US" anyway? This may be perfectly obvious to you, but it certainly isn't to me.

[Sinke]

Stroggy,
Precisely. You can call financial benefits Israel recieves from USA "financial aid" or "military investement". It doesn't matter really. They share their military secrets and tech advances with paper or without it- since they have been allies since Israel was re-formed.  Israel gladly shares tech US adopts , and US gives intelligence info- and probably sometimes helps with "practical" military investement.


A.J.
The United States of  America has always been, for us in Eastern Europe anyway,  a symbol of justice, equality, democracy, law and freedom. I was always sceptical about it, but there is no secret that I always found USA a country of proud and just people, with values they are ready to die for.


But war in Iraq changed that. Bush started spreading democracy like Muslims would spread Islam if they had the power US has. The whole occupation, being illegal and forged on lies to the world, and to American nation at general- ruined the picture of USA. The values I talked about- became absurd in American context- for example during "America's Army" topic on AR forum, we had US soldier discussing his position in society. His remarks that he knows that American politicians are breaking the laws but that he doesn't object because that would ruin American society- became maybe the best given example how US detoriated, making their values a mockery in front of the entire world.

PS: I consider myself pro-American. I have firm trust in the American society, I think they can change this planet to a better place- but I can't ignore that their current government is infact making anti-american policies. Also, while I am ready for discussion anytime- it would be in topic's interest to concentrate on Israel's situation.

[Stroggy]

So both forms aren't aid as such.
In which case your previous statement of

Quote

[Israel's succes] wouldn't be possible without special aid from West. This aid isn't open for Muslim countries.

doesn't serve any purpose, as you stated yourself that both Israel as well as Egypt are supplied by the west with money, only not as direct aid.

Actually, by your own reasoning, Egypt is receiving more beneficial donations ("bribes") from the west, as the only string attached is that they have to maintain a peacetreaty they agreed to themselves. On the other hand, the US's donations to Israel are much more subjected to rules and regulations as to what Israel can and cannot do with the money. It also regulates Israel's (military/scientific) cooperation with other nations, thus barring Israel from enaging in, possibly, more profitable military/scientific projects with European countries.

[Sinke]

I said "special aid", and by that I didn't think purely aid of financial nature. As I said before, surely you don't think that Israel survived this long wihthout help from US? For example, currect veto on UN decisions which would lower the conflict in Lebanon? It has nothing to do with financial matter. On the other hand if Britain would declare war on Egypt calling it's lands ancestorial right- I doubt US would make diplomatic defenses of Egypt .

As for nature of this "alliance", I sincerely believe Israel isn't limited with US's influence over their science treaties or other forms of engagement with other countries. They are allies, not rivals.

[Stroggy]

I seriously can't believe you just likened Israel fighting Hisbullah in Lebanon with Britain trying to reclaim Egypt.
Anyway, it is quite good of you to bring that idea up, though, as we do have a real-life example of something like that happening during the Suez Crisis in 1956.
In that conflict Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company.
Israel, Britain and France secretly agreed that Israel would attack Egypt along the length of the canal. After a short period of fighting between Israel and Egypt, Britain and France would call for a ceasefire and demand both parties to retreat from the canal, at which point French and British troups would invade the area around the canal.

Now in this case, contrary to what you supposed, the US intervened and threatened Britain with heavy financial sanctions (Eisenhower threatened to sell the United States reserves of the British pound, thereby inducing a terrible collapse of the British currency), the same cease-fire was forced by the US on France and Israel (its three major allies).
Some historians say that this conflict marked the beginning of the downfall of the British empire.

Quote

As for nature of this "alliance", I sincerely believe Israel isn't limited with US's influence over their science treaties or other forms of engagement with other countries. They are allies, not rivals.

Sorry, but you are incorrect, the aid is earmarked for use in the U.S. defence contractor market. That is a well-known fact. It is the US that helted Israel when it wanted to create its own jet. Israel began working on the Lavi fighter jet in 1980, initially with US support. However Israel was eventually forced to end the project (they had already advanced quite far in the production and already had a few working prototype ) when the US discontinued its funding, out of fear that the Lavi would compete in the export market with the F-16C/D and the F/A-18C/D.
You are a smart person, I am certain you understand that an alliance can also be quite restrictive.

[Sinke]

Stroggy,

Quote

I seriously can't believe you just likened Israel fighting Hisbullah in Lebanon with Britain trying to reclaim Egypt.

I didn't link the conflict, actually, I linked US policy. In the latter case, US wouldn't defend Egypt as much as it defends Israel now.

As for Suez crisis, Soviet Union's role in the conflict ( they took the Egyptian side ) is crucial for it's understanding. Israel wanted to have control over the canal, and certain European countries would also have benefit from that control. SU didn't like this Western Europe interference, so they made pressure on situation. Knowing that Suez crisis isn't a war in which US could gain anything, US begun lowering the tensions. Even by diplomatic force.

As for Lavi project, I believe it is a lone example in usually quite constructive relationship. Israel gained more with it's "alliance" with US than it lost. All countries participating in Suez canal "diplomatic war" ,except SU, helped in developing Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Alliances can be restrictive, but they last only to the point when their restrictivness becomes stronger than alliance profit.


PS:
Stroggy:

Quote

You are a smart person....

Thanks! It's always nice to read that.  

[taikara]

Sinke, on Aug 8 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

As I said before, surely you don't think that Israel survived this long wihthout help from US?

Does anyone besides me find this statement strangely amusing?

In the ironic sense, not the funny sense...

Seriously Sinke, do you know anything about Israel in the historic or religious sense, and not just what you've seen in the news? Do you have any clue why the Israelis cling so tenaciously to a chunk of land surrounded by countries that would like nothing better than to see them annihilated from the face of the planet?

In a broad sense, Israel has been a nation long before America or many other modern-day countries were ever even imaginable. I think they would survive without the US, with or without land to even call a country, or financial support - I mean, they survived thousands of years that way, really. In fact, Israel's Law of Return basically declares that all Jewish people have right to citizenship in Israel, regardless of their current citizenship.  It sort of embodies the spirit that actually led to the creation to the State of Israel as we know it today - you know, the Zionist movement and all that, and part of why the surrounding Arab nations tend to be so pissed off at Israel (buying up a bunch of land and then declaring independence sometimes has a tendency to do that, I suppose).

Anyhoo, please feel free to continue the debate on financial aid and whatnot, this was just an aside directed to a statement that made me sort of laugh.