Thread: Good guy Israel

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Non-answer.

Any answer i give you your just going to fall back to we're wasting money and its none of our business. You do that every time this discussion comes up. So why ask it again?

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Enlighten me.

See above.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Who said they were the only ones?

No one did i guess but its worth mentioning seeing as you fell back on their stone age beliefs.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Okay. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine. I guess it confuses me when people come into the drama forum, find a thread, read what someone wrote, and then take the time to post JUST to basically say "I am not interested in discussing this."

Have we been over the Israel subject before? Sure. Are we rehashing shit? Probably. Does it bother me? No, or I wouldn't be in this forum, in this thread trying to have a discussion.

So if you'd like to actually talk about it, that's cool, and if you're sick of talking about it, that's cool too. I guess I just don't understand why you'd take the time to come explicitly tell me that.

All that aside, I stand by what I said, if anyone does feel like having a discussion on it.

Fair enough i guess there is no reason to not go over it. As these debates go on people tend to move their place just a bit.

This area is most likely the most fought for place on the planet. Stone age or not that is not going to change anytime soon seeing as religious whack jobs will always be here for the foreseeable future anyway. Israelites inhabited that area several times over the years and in one form or another were removed from it. Personally i dont see a huge difference between them and the last people who claimed that area but i have no vested interest in the land or history.

The difference this time between every other time in history is the global community put them there. I dont think there is an argument that whenever someone steps into another groups issue you will to some degree effect it both positively and negatively. The only real hope is the positive out weighs the negatives.

With that being said governments do not always have the best interests of the citizens in mind. When that offset is minor the goal should be to let it sort itself out or try to get a dialog going as it worsens. Some circumstances require an outside force to level the playing field. That is the basis for the the united nations.

The problem we have right now is this is our own creation. So what is the best solution to the problem? Talks have not worked and most likely never will. Globally everyone has turned their head and acted outraged when something happens. Allowing it to continue is what is a waste of money. It would be cheaper in the long run to step in and squash both egos and force them to deal with each other. However it should be a group effort not just the US.

We as a civilised society should be there to help and cost should not be the primary concern. That concern should be for those people being abused and brutilised. I'm no different then anyone else in my thinking that all nations are not going to agree on everything. This is something that should not be taking place at any point on a map when the means to resolve it are within the grasp of almost every nation on the planet.

I do not disagree with you that we waste a shit ton of money but the decision to spend money should be well thought out. Giving money to oil companies should not out weigh spending money on food for nations in need. Giving money to china should not out weigh giving military support to countries in africa.

Our priorities are so fucked up we think we need to stop helping other nations to feed the poor here. Thats not reality. What we should be doing is feeding the poor and helping other countries in need instead of sending money to countries that dont need it, bailing out companies that failed in basic business practices, giving money to companies that continue to fuck every person on the planet, giving raises and paychecks to politicians that have done 0 to help solve the issues, and so on. The funds are there they just need to be rerouted into useful places.



Sorry if i jumped around a bit i kept getting interrupted and having to pick up where i left off.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Awesome



I agree.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

I don't necessarily agree that you'll always affect it positively and negatively. I think there's been plenty of times where someone steps into another issue to only positive or only negative effect.

Not really feasible to have only positive or only negative effects. Im open for discussion on it but i cant think of a single example that would fall into just those catagories.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

See I don't think the Israel/Iran/Palestine conflict is that type of circumstance. I don't think America should EVER stick our nose into anything unless it directly affects us. If we're attacked, retaliate. If two countries in the middle east want to blow each other up, stay the fuck out of it.

The problem with waiting for it to directly effect you is when it does you've already lost. If we were strictly a retaliatory force would we have 0 allies. As strong as we are we still need those allies because we cant fight on every front at once. Im not a big fan of the UN but that isn't because the premise behind it is bad. Its because it fails at its own mission. It should not be waiting until the last second and thousands are dead to act.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

To me, just another example of how time and again America sticks our noses into international business only for it to come back as an even bigger problem later. We help Osama; He bombs WTC, we help Saddam; he brutalizes his people, we overthrow Saddam; thousands die, billions spent and no real positive change. Every time we try to help it ends up blowing up in our faces. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Of course we have to stick our nose into international business we are after all a part of that community. It doesn't always bite us in the ass but we have our fair share of scars from it. As far as i can see the only real lessons to be learned is weigh every possibilty with a bit more rigor and place clear cut out lines that will not be crossed without punishment.

As an example Japan. They crossed a line and we beat them back and gave them exactly what we expect in order for the ass whipping to end. There is no reason that same philosophy cant be carried over into releasing countries to their new government. In saddams case we should have had the capabilty to remove him the moment he started testing nerve agents on his own people.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Not to sound too harsh, but cost to MY nation and MY people is my primary concern and should be the primary concern of our nation's leaders. Charity is nice and everything, but it has no place in global politics. Not that spending money and engaging in military action has ever actually worked for America. The last time we were semi-successful at the whole "Big bad intervention" thing was World War 2 (World War 2 being one of the times when I DO think intervention was necessary.) Like I said, all that money and all those lives we spend on this shit ends up doing jack shit for anyone ever.

I see no reason why you cant feel the way you do but you also have to respect those that are willing to put others welfare before their own. We will as a country never eliminate hunger and homelessness. Its a sad fact many refuse to see. Thats not because we cant get the funding together to get rid of them but we have people that like living on the streets. Its not for me but who am i to judge.

There are already thousands of places for people to eat that costs nothing. Yet here we are with a hunger issue. Why is that? If i had to take a stab at it its because we're lazier then we are hungry. Those places to eat aren't worth the time and energy to walk to when you can stand on the corner and beg for change. That being said its hard to determine who is actually homeless anymore due to people who have money but play the homeless hungry person. Its a no win situation and the best you can hope for is helping as many as you can.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Money should be spent to further American prosperity and American interests above all else. IF we have some left over after that go ahead and be charitable. I refuse to agree with spending a cent on Africa while there are Americans in desperate need in OUR country.

The answer is very simple then. Enact a law putting caps on salaries. Doing that will spread the wealth a far cry farther then it is right now. I dont disagree that we need to help ourselves but i do disagree that we should ignore everyone else in the process. The only reason we cant do both right now is because of greed.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

I mostly agree with this. America spends money on the dumbest shit as it is. If we can work out how we spend our money so that we can provide international aid and fix our domestic problems, fine. As it is, we're horrifically in debt, and we continue to spend more and more money, and yet people want us to spend even more helping other countries.

Fix America first, then we can look at playing babysitter for the world.

As far as the debt goes in my opinion we need to look at how much and from whom we have borrowed. Then we can deduct what we have been given them every single year. Then we can reevaluate to whom we owe what.