Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof

Israel is a domestic politics issue in the US. It is as simple as that: American democracy can have powerful lobbygroups (in this case especially the Evangelist Christians, not the American Jews) that dominate rule the political discourse. Just think how powerful the gun lobby is in the US.

Hence once that is taken into account, at least some things that Biden has said have been reasonable, starting from his first comments of not doing the mistakes the US did after 9/11. It's no wonder that many commentators say that he (Biden) is actually quite popular in Israel.

So what's your point?

Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century.

So now several times the number of people killed in 10/7 have been murdered in Gaza. But it’s cool, because the intentions were good. Good guys never deliberately kill children. Or maybe they do, but it’s because they have no choice. Hamas is using them as human shields.

How depraved.

So what's your point? — 180 Proof

For any US President it's quite difficult to make a tough stance on Israel. Besides, US Middle East policy is and has been since the Gulf War a slow train wreck.

When US Presidents, even in later life, drift away from the official mantra of closest ally/only democracy around/Judeo-Christian heritage, they will be simply sidelined. For example, who cares if Jimmy Carter decades ago described Gaza as an open air prison? How much is he listened in the US Media? Not one bit. Likud can simply wait for the next President elect, who will be eager to have good relations with Israel. There's always some election going on in the US, so powerful lobby groups have power all the time.

In Israel there can be a heated discussion about the right-wing policies of Israel with many saying how things are openly, but not so in the US. That makes it difficult for any US administration, even if they would have an objective view about the situation.

Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century. — 180 Proof

Seems that the client has much power in this case over the provider.

As Netanyahu has spent so much time in the US, he knows how the US works and basically he can be an American politician. This even is easier when he can speak in English to Americans and in Hebrew to his voters. There's an obvious difference what the Likud party and others tell in the different languages! If he (or the Likud) have problems with an US President, he (or the Israeli right) can simply bypass the administration and talk directly with not only the party in the opposition, but also directly with the Congress members of even the administrations party.

Besides, US Middle East policy is and has been since the Gulf War a slow train wreck. — ssu

Really? What sort of policy changes would have made things better?

Really? What sort of policy changes would have made things better? — frank

How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place?

Saddam would have had his share of trouble when Arab Spring came around, so the last thing he would have been is a threat to his neighbors. Or Israel. Or the US, above all.

And how about not invading Afghanistan and fighting your longest war lived there because a financier of a tiny terrorist group that was successful in one strike? He btw. escaped to the sanctuary of Pakistan, but you didn't invade Pakistan.

Americans craved for revenge and blood after 9/11 and they had this wonderful hammer of the armed forces of a Superpower, hence just to handle the terrorist strike like the earlier terrorist strike on the twin towers with FBI doing a long investigation and finally getting the terrorists convicted in a normal US criminal court, would naturally be totally off the table. Why have GITMO in the first place? Why trample your own values? No, the tiny terrorist cabal couldn't be handled as the criminals they were. Yes, invading and occupying Afghanistan was the answer.

I agree, a houdini of a politician could have gone and fought the "War on Terror" without invading countries, but at least it would have been theoretically possible. Even if these would have made the President look as a "weak dick".

And just how many terrorist strikes on mainland US have happened now when the Taleban are back in power? Because that was the reason for the occupation, for Afghanistan not to become a 'terrorist haven'. Compared to that, the whole "Domino Theory" is far more logical and reasonable. (Now btw. US and Vietnam have good relations.)

Or how about not listening anymore to any of the neocons, who had this lunatic idea of arranging the Middle East totally to their liking with military interventions before China would grow too large (that was their assumption, remember the Project for the New American Century. Those people advocated invading Iraq already in 1998, but after 9/11 they got into power as they wanted and the end result was that the train wreck just worsened. Why are they still an influence in Washington DC?

And how about a little more push on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, above all?

How about treating the state of Israel as a normal ally, like uh, the UK or Australia?

(Ok, the last one is totally ludicrous fantasy, I agree.)

But if you would make a simply extrapolation of previous events, then in the future likely all the arab/Muslim allies that the US have had are it's enemies or quite hostile to it (like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan) and the sole ally is Israel. When you look at it this way, Americans would just love to have Saudi-Arabia as a hostile power. Oh how bad and evil would the Middle East look like then.

How great that would after starting from a position decades ago where there was an treaty organization there, CENTO, and Nasser asked the CIA if it would be OK for US for the Egyptian military to make a coup against the Egyptian king.

And what do know?

Well, when the next terrorist attack against Americans happens, don't do what the terrorists want you to do. Don't listen to the neocons. Perhaps bombing Mecca and Medina would sound as a sound retaliation, but that's basically what the terrorist want. Once you start treating criminals as enemy combatants, you have given them what they wanted in a first place: that they aren't just criminals, but people fighting against the US. Fair fight, I guess from their point of view.

And perhaps Middle East policy shouldn't be decided by lashing out in retaliation when the next terrorist strike happens.

, Iraq was based on false/fabricated intel and later turned into a disaster. (also Nov 14, 2023) If not much else, at least Saddam Hussein's wretched rule ended. I think Afghanistan is different, though. Not so much due to the US rationale to catch Osama bin Laden (and end Al-Qaeda), but due to the takeover by extremist, anti-humanitarian Taliban (also 2001), whose wretched effects we can see today (even if overshadowed by Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine). But that's more of a reason not to abandon Afghanistan. Where's the UN?

So now several times the number of people killed in 10/7 have been murdered in Gaza. But it’s cool, because the intentions were good. Good guys never deliberately kill children. Or maybe they do, but it’s because they have no choice. Hamas is using them as human shields.

How depraved. — Mikie

Who do you think should have won WW2?

The Sudanese.

Seriously?

Ok, let's try that again: who should have won WW2, the Axis or Allies?

How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place? — ssu

You're judging the justification for getting rid of Saddam, not the benefits of getting rid of a torturing tyrant on health of middle-eastern culture.

And how about not invading Afghanistan and fighting your longest war lived there because a financier of a tiny terrorist group that was successful in one strike? He btw. escaped to the sanctuary of Pakistan, but you didn't invade Pakistan. — ssu

Again, you're taking cheap, meaningless pot-shots instead of undertaking a serious assessment.

Americans craved for revenge and blood after 9/11 and they had this wonderful hammer of the armed forces of a Superpower, — ssu

More superficial sound bites. The point of the Iraqi invasion was to democratize the Middle East. It was bold gesture. Unfortunately, the population of the middle east didn't welcome the intervention.

Eh. It used to be worthwhile to discuss world events with you. Not so much anymore.

You're judging the justification for getting rid of Saddam, not the benefits of getting rid of a torturing tyrant on health of middle-eastern culture. — frank

Please tell me the benefits after a war that killed 100 000 Iraqis gave in this case, really. Especially when the situation now is this like this:

(CNN, Dec 15th 2023) US and coalition forces in Iraq came under attack on Thursday afternoon, as the senior general overseeing US forces in the Middle East was visiting the region to meet with American troops and key leaders.

Multiple one-way attack drones were launched against Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, on Thursday, a US official said. There were no casualties or infrastructure damage reported.

The attack marks at least 98 against US and coalition forces since they began on October 17. The attack came as Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, was traveling in Iraq and Syria on Wednesday and Thursday. According to a CENTCOM post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Kurilla met with the Iraqi prime minister and other officials as well as the US Embassy team.

“The leaders discussed current regional and local security concerns with a particular emphasis on the attacks against US forces,” the CENTCOM post said. Kurilla then travelled to Baghdad, Al-Asad Airbase and Erbil Airfield.

In Syria, Kurilla met with “key partners” at various bases to discuss the ongoing defeat-ISIS mission.

“These visits provide valuable insights you cannot get without traveling to the region and seeing it first-hand,” Kurilla said in the CENTCOM post. “I came away with a great sense of pride in the professionalism, dedication, and competence of our incredible service members deployed in harm’s way.”

According to the US official, there have been 46 attacks on forces in Iraq, and 52 on forces in Syria, since October 17. There were three attacks on US and coalition forces in Syria on Wednesday. The leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia vowed this month to continue attacks on US forces “as long as Zionist crimes continue in Gaza and the American occupation continues in Iraq.”

As the Iraqi Parliament asked the US and other foreign forces to leave three years ago, this is a train wreck, no matter how you want to make it US policy in the Middle East something successful and meaningful.

The point of the Iraqi invasion was to democratize the Middle East. — frank

Totally wrong. Please remind yourself just how that war was marketed to the US. It was the Mushroom cloud. Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden. Remember?

It was bold gesture. — frank

It was a lunatic gesture, but yes, those neocons really believed it. At least publicly: the Gulf War had been so easy, all the Arab states including Syria had come to be allies with the US. Soviet Union had given an OK. That was actually the moment when the US lost it's ability to create alliances, use diplomacy. Why bother?

Besides: If someone puts a gun to your head and wants you to be a better person, the only thing you will notice is that some psycho is pointing a gun at you, not what that psycho is telling you. Not even he just wants you to be a better person. So invading countries that have not attacked you and occupying them and trying making them democracies is total lunacy.

Because yes, if a country attacks another country or declares war to it and then is totally beaten and occupied by this other country, that does make people in that country to think what went wrong with themselves and their decision making.

↪ssu, Iraq was based on false/fabricated intel and later turned into a disaster. — jorndoe

False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. They were looking for a moment and the successful terrorist attacks gave them that chance.

I think Afghanistan is different, though. Not so much due to the US rationale to catch Osama bin Laden (and end Al-Qaeda), but due to the takeover by extremist, anti-humanitarian Taliban (also 2001), whose wretched effects we can see today — jorndoe

And how much blame do you put to Pakistan and it's intelligence services, which created and backed and is still backing the movement? In my view this gave a very dangerous example to other countries how to handle the US: you can indeed burn the candle from both ends! Just give the nice photo-op of being in the coalition, and then aid and organize the other side too. I fear similar things are happening in the Middle East now also. You already had basically US allies on different sides of the Libyan Civil war (and now also in Sudan), hence the US doesn't have the situation in control. How great it is in Western Europe compared to other continents where the US wants to create alliances? Oh, but you have to pivot away from Europe.

I would like to mention that there was a time when US policy wasn't similar as now.

Let's remember that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US hadn't invaded any countries outside it's own continent after the Spanish-American war. In Korea, Vietnam or the intervention in Lebanon in 1958, there was a government that did ask for help. And in 1982 the US was part of an multinational force that was looking at the withdrawal of PLO from Lebanon.

So yes, there was a different era in US foreign policy before the unipolar moment.The greatest diplomatic triumph and the most easiest/most decisive war, the liberation of Kuwait, then lead to a tiny cabal of American politicians to make utterly bad conclusions about the US hegemony. As I said to @frank, their boldness was actually hubris which lead into lunacy.

As the Iraqi Parliament asked the US and other foreign forces to leave three years ago, this is a train wreck, no matter how you want to make it US policy in the Middle East something successful and meaningful. — ssu

The US never intended to occupy Iraq long term. Why does Iraq asking the US to leave make the situation a train wreck? By the way, in healthcare, a "train wreck" is a person who isn't going to survive the assault they've experienced, whether it was a physical assault or an assault by a disease. It might be that I don't know how you're using the term. If you're saying Iraq can't survive what it's been through, I'd say you're clearly wrong.

Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)

And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral.

Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)

And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral. — Mikie

This is one of those cul-de-sacs of illogic Israel bashers run into. Should the Allies have won WW2? It's an easy question to answer. Or, at least, it should be an easy question to answer. Yes, the Allies should have won WW2. The Allies did horrible things, including killing untold numbers of children and civilians, but they were the lesser of two evils. So is Israel.

False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. — ssu

If nothing else, at least the story hasn't been "disappeared" / suppressed.

Opinion: ‘At my first meeting with Saddam Hussein, within 30 seconds, he knew two things about me,’ says FBI interrogator
^{— Peter Bergen interviews George Piro · CNN · Mar 21, 2023}

Investigated all the way down to Curveball's involvement, and fairly consistently and openly criticized, including by Americans — a scandal/travesty and lesson learned that might not quite have seen the light of day elsewhere. Something similar will happen again though, whether the US or someone else.

What evidence do you base this opinion on?

Just curious. It helps to make your point clear so others can understand why you think what you think.

And this gives a lot of hope for America.

It shows just how difficult it is to hide in the US what some would say a conspiracy and others (like me) is "using the moment to promote ones terrible agenda".

In fact, for me it this also makes quite questionable any "9/11 inside job" conspiracies. Because you have a thorough picture of how the events went, starting from the first meeting after the terror strikes when certain people started talking about Iraq when everybody else in the room knew it was OBL and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

In a curious way even the public discourse in the US changed after Trump and how swiftly he sidelined a Bush family member. Nobody here is promoting the argument that "The US president simply got bad intel, which was just an accident". Or earlier ideas during the GWOT / Freedom Fries era that "Saddam had links to Al Qaeda". So this is really something that is well known.

Anyway, there is such a stark contrast how the US has handled Europe and how the US has handled the Middle East. It's not obvious that European countries would create with the US a functioning treaty organization like NATO as it isn't obvious that Europe would have gone with the route of integration. Even with the Soviet threat. The US still had a lot to do with this. It really takes long term leadership and understanding what the Europeans want to do that to get to a situation where European countries genuinely depend in their defense matter on an international treaty organization.

The failures of both CENTO and SEATO show how difficult this is. And just how there isn't anything similar in the area where the US wants so desperately to pivot: Asia is quite an assortment of bilateral defence treaties with nonexistent cooperation. That the US creates AUKUS shows this: in the end it's basically a bilateral defence agreement, because naturally Australia and the UK did have defence agreements already.

The US never intended to occupy Iraq long term. — frank

Well, at least John Mccain was honest about it wanting the US to stay for 100 years in Iraq. (Naturally as they are staying in Germany, but anyway...)

Why does Iraq asking the US to leave make the situation a train wreck? — frank

You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy?
:roll:

How many drone attacks on US bases in Europe have been reported done by European militias that want the US out of Europe this year?

The response of East-European civilians when the US forces come by. From a few years ago.


Similar situation in Syria a few years ago, but do you know why they are pelting rocks at the US forces? Hint: a train wreck of a policy.


And during War-on-Terror times during "Operation Iraqi Freedom":


Foreign policy decisions matter. What the US decides to do has an evident impact on how foreigners will treat American forces.

If you're saying Iraq can't survive what it's been through, I'd say you're clearly wrong. — frank

I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps they end up as an failed state, that maybe just barely surviving, but still surviving.

What I'm saying that basically from decade to decade the US stance in the Middle East has become worse. Having to occupy countries isn't a show of success. Not having peace and not having cordial if not friendly relations isn't a show of success. What I'm saying that this is a long train wreck that likely will go on some decades, but the way it's going is not good. It just takes so long that people don't get the full picture from where the US started from.

Just how it was in the 1950's:

You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy? — ssu

I was looking for a more objective analysis. What American foreign policy would not have resulted in a trainwreck? But to answer your question, I think the fact that there is an Iraqi parliament that is able to ask US forces to evacuate is fucking brilliant. That's the optimum outcome to an invasion: the existence of a body that represents the people. I have no idea what you were looking for.

Foreign policy decisions matter — ssu

American foreign policy decisions do, yes. The primary aim of those decisions is to serve the interests of the American people. Does the US government always get that right? No, they really don't.

Not having peace and not having cordial if not friendly relations isn't a show of success — ssu

I think it mainly indicates that the US government doesn't have a magic wand.

Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof

Yes I can. Why don't you try some. I buy the idea that the Palestinians are simply paying off, in installments, the debt incurred by almost (and at least) four generations of stupid and murderous behavior directed at Jews. And they keep increasing the debt! It is that simple. In all of this are there things to complain about, things that we all wish were different? Of course. But none of that addresses the basic problem: some Palestinians want to murder Jews and there are enough of them to create the whole problem - and from time to time they "refresh" and demonstrate their ambitions by actually murdering - wholesale - Jews. Now a question to you: in this Gaza/Israel dance, who do you think is really in control? I submit that the Palestinians are. Before Oct. 7 there was no war, and then Hamas set into motion that which could only result in war, a terrible war. Almost what we might call in a different circumstance suicide-by-cop. I view the Israeli reaction as essentially a police action, and one which will (should only) stop when the bad guys are apprehended.

Of course you can propagandize all you want - it does not become you - but it will do, is doing and has done, much harm and no good.

:lol: Wtf are you talking about, tim?! Your (Dunning-Kruger level) historical illiteracy and/or self-deception are stunning.

But that's what the police do. When the bad guys do something and go hide in a city, the police kill everyone in that city until they have killed all the bad guys. And because they are the good guys, they can kill kids in hospitals and schools and blow up entire apartment blocks of innocent civilians to get one bad guy because that is a good thing to do because they are good. Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while.

Leaving the kindergarten level commentators behind, here are a couple of interesting headlines from Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which tends to try at least to offer a nuanced and critical view of the conflict going on in Israel's name:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/graphic-videos-and-incitement-how-the-idf-is-misleading-israelis-on-telegram/0000018c-5ab5-df2f-adac-febd01c30000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-israeli-army-has-dropped-the-restraint-in-gaza-and-data-shows-unprecedented-killing/0000018c-4cca-db23-ad9f-6cdae8ad0000

Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys.

"Shalom!" :mask: :up:

Israel bashers — RogueAI

Bye.

Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while. — Baden

Israel basher!

I was looking for a more objective analysis. What American foreign policy would not have resulted in a trainwreck? — frank

It's a good question.

Let's just look at the area first without the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. If you looked at the short historical video that put about CENTO in the last comment, notice that there the Middle Eastern members were calling for the US to join also the treaty organization. So first, there's commitment. If you want to be a Superpower, then you have to be one. If you don't want to be a Superpower, well, the US president will be listened to as much as the comments of the Canadian Prime Minister is.

Then a simple guideline: do take into consideration what the objective of the regional states are. Ask them, just like the Europeans themselves, what they want. As I stated, in the European integration process which lead to the EU, the US had a notable role. But if your real guidelines on foreign policy actions come from special interest groups, corporations and domestic lobbyists who have nothing to do with the actual regional politics, the end result will be different.

And there's many situations where could the US have taken another stance. Was Pan-Arabism really going to be socialist? After the US reprimanded the UK and France after their last Great Power adventure of the Suez Crisis, the US could have gone another way with Egypt. Of course now one get's to the what-if guessing, which makes only limited sense.

And then, if the US was OK with Mexico nationalizing it's oil production, what if you would have accepted Iran nationalizing it's oil production. In the end even Saudi-Arabia with Saudi-Aramco got it to be fully owned by Saudi Arabia. What would have Iran been if Mossadeq would have stayed in power and you wouldn't have had Operation Ajax?

And what to do with the Kurds? Again one problematic issue in the Middle East.

Then when the Gulf States organized into GCC, how about taking a role there and not letting these squabbling monarchs nearly going to war with each other. They nearly went to war... with a US base in the country. If the GCC would have been a treaty organization like CENTO was, would there have been the Yemen intervention as now?

And what are the effects now when Iran attacks Saudi-Arabia's oil refineries and the US reacts without doing anything? You think that's a great way to show your leadership?

Because there's something called leadership. Trump is one of the best example of a President who lacks this: a populist fixated on himself who isn't someone that listens to others (perhaps with the exception of the dictators he likes). But someone will argue that he did a lot. Well, he gave Afghanistan on a platter to the Taleban and with the Abraham accords basically tried to bribe the Arab countries into peace with Israel. At least Morocco got an OK for it's territorial annexations, which is quite ironic, actually. Bribing can be useful, but it's not a long term solution.

Just think how different it is today from how George Bush senior created a coalition when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US got a green light from Soviet Union. The US got a green light from the UN. The US got a large quantity of Arab and Muslim countries to join the coalition, including Syria. Above all, the US listened to it's Arab allies and didn't invade Iraq as the Saudis knew what would happen. And they actually were right.

How about now?

Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys. — Baden

Yeah, well their media isn't controlled by or scared of the Israeli lobby from America!


And btw has anybody noticed the line of the Likud parties original platform(from 1977):

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

So no for a two-state solution and Israel from the river to the sea. Well, they are really working hard for that!