Despite your aplomb and your phrase "...I just happened to know way more than you do. If you want to debate then by all means" you proved you don't know shit by saying that poland helped more in Iraq than Israel did. I mean the reasons for this should be self evident but apparently not to you. So an explanation is in order. The reason US did not want Israel anywhere near Iraq in both Gulf Wars was because its military support was unnecessary and its presence was anathema to muslim nations in the region. It was a sensitive subject and was hanlded the right way within the framework of a misguided war. Now on to point by point: "Obviously not you! but for the 12.8% (weighted average) who happened to be under the poverty line, they beg to disagree. Egypt does not receive the exact amount! Egypt's Aid is "PEGGED" at 2/3 of Israel's. I for one think that the United State has been conned into, once again, footing the bill for Israel security. I do not know if you are aware but that aid started after 1979 when Anwar Sadat agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel for the sake of receiving this hand-out from the US. Since then, Egypt plummeted into corruption, dictatorship and despair. For the vast majority of people there, this financial aid helped better position a corrupt regime that was on a shaky ground. I am not blaming the US for this blunder but the US should've clearly came out and told both to f-off and to sort their mess on their own." Who said anything about the poor? Whose poor? US aid to israel is not extraordinary in amount, case closed. I also said aid to egypt is either close or very similar and it is. You are not unique in believing that paying egypt is about Israel's security. I mean what are the benefits of not having never ending wars in a strategically vital region? Dumb. The reason should be self-evident. Yes, egypt was a shining beacon of progress and prosperity before camp david accords. The best joke of all. Egypt got owned in all the wars with israel and wanted Sinai back. And you are saying it got conned. Egypt had issues back during the time Great Britain was the supreme colonial power. Nasser was an arrogant fool (par for the course for the region) and got crushed during the 1967 war. But by your claims, decay began in earnest after egypt starting receiving aid from the US. "I disagree on this point. I strongly believe the support with Israel is not related to national interest. Rather, it is internal pressure groups such as the 60 million strong Evangelicals and Israel's lobby in the US. How is it in the national interest in the US when my best ally is spying on me. How is it in my national interest when part of the war against Iraq was due to protecting Israel's interest. How is it that it is in US's interest when the number one reason for Islamic extremism in the Middle East is US's unconditional support toward Israel. " Of course you don't believe it is related to national interest. This trait is common to all people who express your viewpoints. Israel took out Saddam's reactor with impunity in the 80s that was when Iraq was actually capable of something militarily. Israel did not lose a single arab israeli war but now Israel was huddled in fear of Saddam's post sanction army(delineated by no fly zones nonetheless). Sounds about right. FYI Saddam's military capacity was destroyed post first gulf war. Arabs resent the western nations because western nations have shaped destinies of people in the middle east for the benefit of those western nations. As far as western nations are concerned, middle eastern nations should provide oil and not create any "disturbances". Free flow of oil is paramount. Of course, arabs don't see themselves as simple providers of oil and resent that. That is why Great Britain did its best to keep pan arabic nationalism down. It used poison gas in Iraq in the 1920s if I remember correctly, it also engaged in "air patrols"- bombing insolent villages to keep law and order. That is why when Egypt started playing with the suez canal, UK, France and Israel attacked it. Commercial and strategic interests there were too important to allow indigenous populations to contemplate such dangerous ideas as nationalism. "You are wrong on two fronts! The only time United states stood against an aggression war carried by Israel was in 1956 when France, UK and Israel attacked Egypt for claiming their national assets. As for the "new" member of the NATO, come on man, who are you trying to fool? We both know that all of the above countries you mentioned were more than Willing to join NATO at any cost especially after they were kept under WARSAW by force. These countries were not against you as you claim and you know it. These countries were occupied by the Soviet Union and were controlled by regimes appointed by the Kremlin. " When I said open belligerent I meant that at no point were US forces directly involved. And I stand by that point. US was sending supplies but US aircraft carriers were not attacking Cairo. Like I said before, there is no value either economic or military from countries like Romania. I used them to highlight imperialistic US foreign policy. Israel is important for US foreign policy in the middle east and was useful throughout the cold war while countries like poland played for the other side (under duress or not) "Wrong again! site me one example to back this argument! Arabs accepted the Soviet Union support, during the cold war, to balance the belligerent American support of Zionist Israel which occupied Palestine. Now, can you tell me how did US's support toward Israel, during the cold war, pay off for the United States? The Way I see it, it would've been impossible for the Soviet Union to gain a foot hold in the Middle East if it wasn't for the US's support for Israel. Syria, Egypt, PLO, Iraq and many others willingly accepted the Soviet's support only because they felt threatened by Israel and its backer, namely United states. The Arabs and Muslims, due to their rejection to communism as anti religious and nationalistic would've joined the United States over the Soviet Union in a heart beat." I already gave examples tracing back to Great britain's colonial times. During WWII, there was plenty of NAZI sympathy going on in the middle east even in the areas not occupied by NAZI germany. In simplest terms, arabs didn't like being relegated to banana republics only useful for serving up oil and started expressing dangerous nationalistic attitudes. Soviet Union was keen to seize on that and enjoyed some success with it. "Do you want to talk facts or empty arguments for the sake of proving your point?! If that is the case, why did it take a visit from Gates to convince "ALL" of these sheiks to foot all of that money?? why didn't they do it prior? Why not a bit after? Why, out of a sudden, and during and after Gates visit did all of that money flow??? As for the money making opportunity, I do not know about you but losing 40% of the trillions of dollars invested is not exactly a money making opportunity. " They were making money every time an american (or anyone else) filled his car with gas. They were also making money on investments such as citi when it was going to the moon in the late 90s. "Orthodox Jewish newspapers remove women from Israel cabinet photo http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270473" Orthodox Jews don't run Israel. Israel has women serving in active combat,allows women to drive (and do everything they want) and had a female prime minister (Golda Meir) When I referred to Saudi Arabia as having alien culture I meant that a meaningful long lasting alliance based on common values (and not convenience) was impossible. This is purely a transactional thing. For conclusion, I decided to address the underlying mentality that gives rise to viewpoints such as yours. After reading your post and looking at your weird username, I came to the concnlusion that I am dealing with an arab nationalist. Very few people in this world are capable of taking an objective look at themselves. Even fewer are capable of judging their nationality objectively. Instead of looking for underlying flaws and flawed "national character" they come up with various explanations such as this brutal dictator is responsible for all our ills or israel is at fault or US did this. Nobody wants to acknowledge the simple reality that countries such as egypt are third world nations able to offer nothing to western world in terms of commercial significance (pride and heritage don't count). And those with oil are still backward in their ways, propelled temporarily by oil cash. UAE will never stop its insecure and tasteless building of "world's tallest" buildings, building ski resorts in the middle of the desert etc. Instead of looking inward to find an explanation as to why those countries are backward they conveniently blame the US, Israel or the West. Various authoritarian regimes are keen to exploit this to channel "people's anger" from looking at their countires and leadership of those countries to Israel. It is not that those countries are backward, with horrible infrastructure, no rule of law, dilapidated education system, autoritarian ways, absence of secularism, primitive financial systems. No, it was israel and usa that took "greatness" from them. Because they don't view themselves as backward (nobody ever does) they get a distorted view of US foreign policy. By and large, US extracts the only thing that the middle east can provide (other than sand). Its utilitarian approach is guided by economic reality. And the reason I said someone had to be misguided to attack my points was because they were thought out and polished long ago and are far superior to what an average fool on the street of cairo believes.
You know you are not dealing with a reasonable person when he suggested Egypt "kicked Israel's ass in 1973 war" I mean what can you say to that? There is a big difference between a war starting out not smoothly and losing. 1973 was not the same brilliant overwhelming victory of 1967 but nevertheless Israel did not lose. For some historical comparison NAZI soldiers came very close to Moscow and still lost. Had Israel "lost" the war it would have not existed or at the very least be forced to give up golan heights back to syria. The "victorious coalition" of Egypt, Syria and Iraq would have imposed any condition they wanted to. But we all know this did not happen because Israel won. Eventually Egypt got Sinai back and decided to spent its resources on more productive pursuits than wars with Israel. As I pointed out, we are dealing with someone whose views on israel are core beliefs. In essence we are most likely dealing with an arab youth "properly indoctrinated" in the schools and who most likely lives in a slum with a satellite dish watches al jazeera and goes to internet cafes to talk smack on the forums.
As always, coming up with second grade knowledge of warfare! I feel that I am going to have to repeat myself many times before you would be able to comprehend. Sadat Did not want that war. Sadat wanted to get closer to the US but had to show the Americans that he was not a small fish. You could insist on your stupid silly argument for as long as you want but the decision of Sadat to stop the Northern advance toward Tel-Aviv was a shocker to even his war partner Asad. He even got angry at Kissinger who begged him to stop his 3rd army's advance only to be a target for the Israeli air force. Kissinger, being the back stabbing liar he was, broke his promise to Sadat by delaying the cessation of fire until the third army was almost wiped out. These are facts! but to an idiot who feeds of whatever Zionist crumbs they throw to him, it is not! You still did not answer my question Slick! In your expert opinion , did Israel come out victorious from their wars with Hizbullah and Hamas?
I so am glad that you got it out of your system Jewish boy. So when are you going to start your next ponzy scheme? Beside, racism is counter productive to your marketing campaign to promote your suffering. Acting like another KKK will open a can of warms on you.
Whatever you say Little Cheerleader. I am not here to score points but people will see who lost the argument.