NFT: BREAKING: Unconditional, 72-Hour Cease Fire to Begin in Gaza

In comment 11790153 Rob in NYC said:

Quote:

poster wastes so much bandwidth defending his team, rather than actually looking for the correct answer.

Could not agree more and i would add the following:

"Defending his team, and/or using a situation to try to create a BS point for his team based on one sides political talking points."

The fact that it was this Admin who requested and funded the majority of the "Iron Dome" defense system Israel has?

Quote:

By the way, do any of those cartoon sources have one showing montanagiant : 6:02 pm : link : reply The fact that it was this Admin who requested and funded the majority of the "Iron Dome" defense system Israel has?

Won't post all the resources used below but all were found simply by googling various questions.

1) Overall the US funds roughly 22% of Israel's total military defense budget. (Hardly majority funding.)

2) Apparently Israel itself funded 100% of the initial development and deployment of the 1st two Iron Dome batteries, with all of that funding (or at least the vast majority of it) going to Israeli tech firms who developed the tracking capacity and well everything else involved in the system until it was actually deployed and proved effective, from Wikipedia with footnote source annotation:

Quote:

The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[27] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[28]

Your "...this administration... funded the majority of the Iron Dome System...." includes ZERO of the start-up and development cost.

Going forward from now until 2017, the US has committed to spend something like $900 million on the Iron Dome, but it's hardly a pure handout via at least 2 accounts:

1st the US has demanded that Israel share the technology (100% Israeli developed proprietary technology, to repeat) with the US. That's at least partly paying for proprietary technology, not a "funding handout."

2nd whereas something like 3% of the total expenditure for the Iron Dome up until 2011 or 2012 or so was paid to US contractors, Obama (following Congress's demands) is demanding that ultimately 55% of the US funds that in the future will support the Iron Dome be paid to US based contractors. That's as much propping up the US defense sector economy as it is a flat handout to Israel's Iron Dome...

Quote:

In May 2014, the Israeli government agreed to spend more than half the funds allocated by the U.S. Congress for Iron Dome funding to be spent on contractors in the United States. The agreement stipulates that funds spent in the America will jump to 55% of the total allocations by 2015, a marked increase from 3% previously.

- from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/IronDome.html

3rd the most recent wave of funding is dedicated to replenishing Israel's stock of Iron Dome missiles, each one of which costs something between $60,000 to $100,000 depending on the source you believe.
- Funding the re-supply of Tamir interceptor missiles, is kinda like bribing Israel to accept US policy decisions re ceasefires, etc.

3) Regarding expenditures to date re the Iron Dome, The Jewish Virtual Library has this info:

Quote:

In May 2012, President Obama directed US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allocate an additional $70 million to pay for more Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles in Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had come to the States during the month to seek further resource allocation and thanked the administration for helping upkeep a system which has proven successful in saving lives and preventing an escalation in violence. The United States has now paid nearly $300 million for the Iron Dome system.

The italics are mine.

I did not find a date on the above quoted articles, but "has now paid" must be after May 28th 2014 because a Bloomsburg Businessweek article of that date is referenced as a source for the above info.

More links:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/DEFREG04/304300003/U-S-Attaches-Strings-Israeli-Iron-Dome-Funds

http://aviationweek.com/defense/iron-dome-repels-hamas-rockets

Contra-Israel POV FYI: http://thebulletin.org/israel%E2%80%99s-iron-dome-misplaced-debate7349
wikipedia - ( New Window )

Line of 20% of a foreign nation's defense budget is extremely generous.

We understand how personal this conflict is for you, and we all hope for your and your loved ones' safety. However, your continued sense of entitlement regarding the role of the United States in defense of Israel in your posts along with your criticism of how the United States is either not doing enough or how the United States had little to do with Israel's security is becoming old real fast.

You can hope for security without continuing to bite the hand that has been most responsible for your nation's security.

.

And we give plenty of aid to countries that are not very friendly to us, Pakistan and even the Palestinians.

If we were smart, and we haven't been, we'd just shut up and let Israel take care of Hamas. All these ridiculous cease fires do is let Hamas off the hook and reload for the next round. And then we have to pay to fix up the Palestinians and give more money to Israel to defend itself against the new rockets that Hamas get. It's insane.

I don't think we have that much of a moral high ground when it comes to telling Israel to do a ceasefire with Hamas. We wouldn't in their situation.

Refer back to other threads that BluLou has started where he has criticized the United States on many occasions while reluctantly giving credit to what having the United States as an ally has done for Israel.

The sense of entitlement get a bit much, in my opinion.

how the fuck you get "entitlement" out of what I posted above. Or how my post is "biting the hand that feeds Israel." I fully agree 20% or a bit more is a huge prop to our absurd but absolutely necessary defense budget.

You, and one or two others here mentioned a "sense of entitlement" in my posts, and frankly I don't get why. Above I am responding to montanagiant's completely unsupported post that "the US funded the majority of the Iron Dome." I googled and then read most of 5 articles about the funding of the Iron Dome, and nowhere did I see that observation so I posted some of the stuff I did find.

Instead of bitching about my tone, why don't you find evidence to support montanagiant's claim?

Yes, the US has agreed to fund the lion's share of the Iron Dome costs going forward, the vast majority of which is resupply of the Tamirs that have been used and adding additional batteries of the weapon. That's promised future spending, not what has already been spent which was what montana stated...

Oh BTW I do have a kinda "sense of entitlement" that dates back to how the entire world handled WWII and Hitler's holocaust mission. But I hardly think that's entering my post above, or any previous post on the current situation.

BTW, how much does the US prop up South Korea's military? I have no idea what the US spends at the minimum to keep troops stationed there and couldn't easily find the data.

And the US plans to sell 100 F-35s to Turkey, and has agreed to sell 20 to Israel. I'm leery of that, and where O'Bama is going vis a vis trusting Turkey and Qatar as US allies. That doesn't bother you?

Turkey will be a very interesting country to follow going forward under Erdogan, the guy makes me very nervous and has been a pretty big human rights violator regarding his opposition.

I think the gripe that most in Israel have is more with Kerry/Obama and their handling of foreign policy in general, the track record is quite abysmal (see Iran/Syria/Ukraine). On one hand the US supports Israel quite substantially($), but then the US goes behind Israel's back into a $12b arms deal with Qatar.

And then the whole recent ceasefire(s) have been a disaster, from leaving out the PA/Egypt and just expecting Israel to go along with whatever Hamas/Turkey/Qatar demanded. And now forcing Israel into a ceasefire only to have it backfire when a soldier is kidnapped.

Don't think the US needs to back Israel unconditionally but they are trying some form of tough live which won't working

...

Quote:

Refer back to other threads that BluLou has started where he has criticized the United States on many occasions while reluctantly giving credit to what having the United States as an ally has done for Israel.

I have recently been very critical of Kerry's "efforts" and Obama's latest stance, but I sure as heck aren't the only guy on BBI that thinks Kerry is a dufus, at least in this instance.

And Obama might me one had giveth and the other takes away by association with Turkey and Qatar... Turkey is an Israeli "ally" but a rather uncomfortable one under Erdogan.

has to continuously think of its own long term national security interests while supporting its allies. Israel is one of several in the region. I get it. You don't like the way that the US has handled this ceasefire situation or the entire conflict thus far, but you also fail to see that conducting diplomacy in a region so fraught with so much complexity that goes back several millennium is difficult for even the greatest of statesmen.

In the end, unless it's to the benefit of the US national security interests, I don't think the US owes Israel anything beyond what a normal alliance would provide, so yes, I think your sense of entitlement (as you said, I'm not the only one who got the impression reading your litany of threads/posts on this topic in the past few months) is apparent and getting old.

And I'm not really sure why you're bringing up S. Korea as a counterpoint. I don't see anyone on here whining about how the US isn't doing enough or has done a bad job for S. Korea or the situation on the peninsula. Only one whining about the US not doing enough for their nation is you.

materially. But it does seem silly on one hand to give aid to Israel to protect itself and then condemn them when they do defend themselves.

And I wonder if montana remembers that the Iron Dome is based on SDI, which was Reagan's initiative that was ridiculed by the Dems and called Star Wars.

And yes, Kerry is a dufus.

In comment 11790679 buford said:

Quote:

materially. But it does seem silly on one hand to give aid to Israel to protect itself and then condemn them when they do defend themselves. And I wonder if montana remembers that the Iron Dome is based on SDI, which was Reagan's initiative that was ridiculed by the Dems and called Star Wars. And yes, Kerry is a dufus.

Who's been condemning Israel's obligation to defend itself? Because you give support to your allies to defend itself doesn't mean you have to like the way they do it, yet you don't see the US pulling its support back.

And I think the first paragraph from BlueLou's previous post (in another thread) pretty much sums up why I made my earlier comments. Because this is the reason why the US has maintained its backing of Israel...give me a fucking break.

Quote:

For the others that suggested I was acting ungrateful for US support, yeah you might be right that I am taking US support (about 20% of Israeli's 15 Billion defense budget is subsidized by the US, mostly by dint of military hardware support) for granted. In a way though that support is just another way for Uncle Sam to prop up his defense industry contractors, since Israel is a very large purchaser of US made weapons. I don't think Israel goes out seeking the lowest bidder on fighter-bomber tenders from the USSR or the French-British coalition at Dassault or whatever...

Link - ( New Window )

In comment 11790644 BlueLou said:

Quote:

Quote: By the way, do any of those cartoon sources have one showing montanagiant : 6:02 pm : link : reply The fact that it was this Admin who requested and funded the majority of the "Iron Dome" defense system Israel has? Won't post all the resources used below but all were found simply by googling various questions. 1) Overall the US funds roughly 22% of Israel's total military defense budget. (Hardly majority funding.) 2) Apparently Israel itself funded 100% of the initial development and deployment of the 1st two Iron Dome batteries, with all of that funding (or at least the vast majority of it) going to Israeli tech firms who developed the tracking capacity and well everything else involved in the system until it was actually deployed and proved effective, from Wikipedia with footnote source annotation: Quote: The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[27] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[28] Your "...this administration... funded the majority of the Iron Dome System...." includes ZERO of the start-up and development cost. Going forward from now until 2017, the US has committed to spend something like $900 million on the Iron Dome, but it's hardly a pure handout via at least 2 accounts: 1st the US has demanded that Israel share the technology (100% Israeli developed proprietary technology, to repeat) with the US. That's at least partly paying for proprietary technology, not a "funding handout." 2nd whereas something like 3% of the total expenditure for the Iron Dome up until 2011 or 2012 or so was paid to US contractors, Obama (following Congress's demands) is demanding that ultimately 55% of the US funds that in the future will support the Iron Dome be paid to US based contractors. That's as much propping up the US defense sector economy as it is a flat handout to Israel's Iron Dome... Quote: In May 2014, the Israeli government agreed to spend more than half the funds allocated by the U.S. Congress for Iron Dome funding to be spent on contractors in the United States. The agreement stipulates that funds spent in the America will jump to 55% of the total allocations by 2015, a marked increase from 3% previously. - from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/IronDome.html 3rd the most recent wave of funding is dedicated to replenishing Israel's stock of Iron Dome missiles, each one of which costs something between $60,000 to $100,000 depending on the source you believe. - Funding the re-supply of Tamir interceptor missiles, is kinda like bribing Israel to accept US policy decisions re ceasefires, etc. 3) Regarding expenditures to date re the Iron Dome, The Jewish Virtual Library has this info: Quote: In May 2012, President Obama directed US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allocate an additional $70 million to pay for more Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles in Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had come to the States during the month to seek further resource allocation and thanked the administration for helping upkeep a system which has proven successful in saving lives and preventing an escalation in violence. The United States has now paid nearly $300 million for the Iron Dome system. The italics are mine. I did not find a date on the above quoted articles, but "has now paid" must be after May 28th 2014 because a Bloomsburg Businessweek article of that date is referenced as a source for the above info. More links: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/DEFREG04/304300003/U-S-Attaches-Strings-Israeli-Iron-Dome-Funds http://aviationweek.com/defense/iron-dome-repels-hamas-rockets Contra-Israel POV FYI: http://thebulletin.org/israel%E2%80%99s-iron-dome-misplaced-debate7349 wikipedia - ( New Window )

Sure i can:
1)

Quote:

The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[27] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[28] Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012.[28] Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010.[29] In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project.[29] Such financial assistance could expedite the completion of the defensive system, which has long been delayed by budgetary shortfalls.[30] A few days later, on 20 May 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding in a 410–4 vote.[31] The bill, the United States–Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act (H.R. 5327), was sponsored by Representative Glenn C. Nye of Virginia.[32] This money was expected to be included in the 2011 budget. Once the money was received in 2011, it still took a further 18 months before the additional batteries were delivered to the air force.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

The link has all the webpages listed to substantiate the claim. Those links are numbered above in the quoted area

2)

Quote:

Efforts in the Senate to approve the money stalled Thursday night after Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma sought cuts elsewhere in the budget to pay for the aid. Earlier, senators attempted to lump the Israel money into a broader spending bill that included border security and wildfire assistance money. That bill failed to get the necessary 60 votes on Thursday, and the House had little interest in it, anyway. Friday's separate Israel bill passed by voice vote. The Iron Dome system has emerged as a game-changer in the current round of violence, with Israeli officials citing a success rate as high as 90 percent. The system uses radar, advanced tracking technology and anti-missile batteries to follow the trajectory of an incoming rocket or mortar and determine if it is headed for a major population center. If an urban area is threatened, interceptors are fired to detonate in the air in close proximity to the missile. Projectiles not posing a threat are allowed to fall in empty fields. The system targets short-range rockets with a range between 2 miles and 45 miles; interceptors cost as much $100,000 apiece. Created by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Iron Dome has enjoyed strong U.S. technological and financial support. Throughout its history, the U.S. has provided more than $700 million to help Israel cover costs for batteries, interceptors, production costs and maintenance, the Congressional Research Service said. The total already appeared set to climb above $1 billion after Senate appropriators doubled the Obama administration's request for Iron Dome funding for fiscal 2015. Now it seems likely to rise even

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/01/senate-approves-funding-for-israels-iron-dome-defense-system/

3)

Quote:

Congress overwhelmingly approved an emergency measure on Friday to grant $225 million in additional revenue to Israel for the country’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) received unanimous consent from his colleagues Friday morning when he asked them to consider approving the measure, The Hill reported. An attempt one day earlier by the Senate to approve funding for the system had failed. Friday evening the House of Representatives also overwhelmingly passed the additional funding by a vote of 395-8. The packagewill put nearly a quarter of a billion dollars towards Israel’s missile defense system, which is jointly built by US defense giant Raytheon, as the country continues its campaign against Hamas in Gaza. “They’re running out of Iron Dome missiles to protect themselves,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said at the hearing, according to The Hill. “We are with you. Here are the missiles.” “We are with the Israelis, because if they don’t have the Iron Dome, they can’t defend themselves,” added Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona). John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said: “The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today’s attack, which led to the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the apparent abduction of another. It was an outrageous violation of the ceasefire negotiated over the past several days, and of the assurances given to the United States and the United Nations.” Kerry also said Hamas must “immediately and unconditionally” release the Israeli soldier in their custody.

http://rt.com/usa/177404-senate-support-iron-dome-israel/


Let me know if you need anymore

In comment 11790650 RC02XX said:

Quote:

Line of 20% of a foreign nation's defense budget is extremely generous. We understand how personal this conflict is for you, and we all hope for your and your loved ones' safety. However, your continued sense of entitlement regarding the role of the United States in defense of Israel in your posts along with your criticism of how the United States is either not doing enough or how the United States had little to do with Israel's security is becoming old real fast. You can hope for security without continuing to bite the hand that has been most responsible for your nation's security.

Absolutely 100% spot on. It really gets tiresome

In comment 11790665 ImThatGuy said:

Quote:

I think the gripe that most in Israel have is more with Kerry/Obama and their handling of foreign policy in general, the track record is quite abysmal (see Iran/Syria/Ukraine). On one hand the US supports Israel quite substantially($), but then the US goes behind Israel's back into a $12b arms deal with Qatar. And then the whole recent ceasefire(s) have been a disaster, from leaving out the PA/Egypt and just expecting Israel to go along with whatever Hamas/Turkey/Qatar demanded. And now forcing Israel into a ceasefire only to have it backfire when a soldier is kidnapped. Don't think the US needs to back Israel unconditionally but they are trying some form of tough live which won't working

Please enlighten us what should have been done different. When you do so, try to frame with the actual constraints (both legally and politically) put in place by the Senate and the House. Don't give me the talking point BS that ignores actual facts please.

country and while we're at it, bring all of our troops home. No need for them to be in Germany and South Korea, among other places. We have enough issues at home.

show how much Israel spent for the initial development of the Iron Dome which is nowhere mentioned in the wikipedia link I provided or the Fox news link you provided.

I suspect you are right based on one Israeli military expert's statement that I read (can't remember where) that by far the main cost of the system is the stocking and re-stocking of the spent missiles at 100k per pop, and clearly the US is funding the vast majority of that cost.

But the US got the technology of the system in return, tech that belonged solely to the IDF. I have no idea what's that worth, do you? It has no relevance to US security at home given the US's physical isolation from immediate threats, but so long as the US continues to have military bases spanning the globe I presume it's of interest for use for protecting those bases from local threats.

We funded the next eight AND we are continuing to fund the resupply of the missiles
Does not get much more "Majority" then that.
What you should be is appreciative of the fact that this admin is the one who decided to fund those eight.

The other is that if the administrations policies lead to the dissolution of the Jewish state then they don't have much to be thankful for at all, really, do they? Just saying....

In comment 11790797 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

The other is that if the administrations policies lead to the dissolution of the Jewish state then they don't have much to be thankful for at all, really, do they? Just saying....

You can't even call this a point of view due to the fact it is so buried in delusional logic and rational. You seem to love to throw out talking points without ANY kind of substance, how about illustrating all of us how this admins policies are leading to the "dissolution of the Jewish State"? Not more TP crap, but actual validated substance.

Why bother asking for something you know you won't get,

"BTW, how much does the US prop up South Korea's military? I have no idea what the US spends at the minimum to keep troops stationed there and couldn't easily find the data."

Here's what I found from warontherocks.com:

"According to the Senate Armed Services Committee report, U.S. military non-personnel costs in South Korea totaled about $1.1 billion in 2012, while Korean payments totaled $765 million."

The ROK pays the US annually as part of the "burden sharing" agreement between the two countries.

There's quite a bit of editorializing in the body of the article, but I hope the above answers BlueLou's question.




US military expenditure in South Korea - ( New Window )

I forgot to add this from the same piece:

" If Obama redeployed the troops presently stationed in the peninsula, the U.S. could save an estimated $100 million per month excluding the cost of two annual exercises, deployment of thousands of reservists from mainland, mandatory maintenance and service of weapons systems. This projected figure was calculated based on 28,500 service members’ allotted overseas finances (Overseas Housing Allowance, Hazardous Duty Pay, Cost of Living Allowance, and Assignment Incentive Pay) in South Korea."

If the numbers and my math are correct, the US is spending $2.3 billion a year between non-personnel and personnel costs in South Korea.

A bit of more haphazard research tells me the US gave about $2.8 billion to Israel in 2010 in the form of military aid.

Does that even sound possible?

Has not one ting to do with what we assist Israel with. We are not cutting funding to Israel and moving it there, or having to make a decision of one or the other. Our presence in S. Korea goes much further then just aiding the ROK.

In comment 11790811 RC02XX said:

Quote:

Why bother asking for something you know you won't get,

I know, It just amazes me how no matter the situation it gets turned into ridiculous talking points and silly memes by many people just so they can bitch about one political party or the other.

In comment 11790867 montanagiant said:

Quote:

Has not one ting to do with what we assist Israel with. We are not cutting funding to Israel and moving it there, or having to make a decision of one or the other. Our presence in S. Korea goes much further then just aiding the ROK.

Don't shoot the messenger. Just doing a bit of research for BlueLou. He asked. ;)

BTW: I spend six months of the year in the ROK, teaching. I'm fully aware of why we're there.

Quote:

Netanyahu to US: Don't second guess me on Hamas WASHINGTON (AP) — Following the quick collapse of the cease-fire in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the White House not to force a truce with Palestinian militants on Israel. Sources familiar with conversations between Netanyahu and senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, say the Israeli leader advised the Obama administration "not to ever second guess me again" on the matter. The officials also said Netanyahu said he should be "trusted" on the issue and about the unwillingness of Hamas to enter into and follow through on cease-fire talks. The Obama administration on Friday condemned "outrageous" violations of an internationally brokered Gaza cease-fire by Palestinian militants and called the apparent abduction of an Israeli soldier a "barbaric" action. The strong reaction came as top Israeli officials questioned the effort to forge the truce, accusing the U.S. and the United Nations of being naive in assuming the radical Hamas movement would adhere with its terms. The officials also blamed the Gulf state of Qatar for not forcing the militants to comply.

Link - ( New Window )

Keep telling yourself there is no other "way of looking at it" which is all I said, I didn't say it was a fact, simply pointed out there are other perceptions,which you don't seem to recognize.

It's one thing to acknowledge there are 2 points of view, it's something else entirely to make a case for either point.You asked me to marry myself to a position contrary to yours, make the case and prove it, which was never my intent, rather simply to point out your view is not universally held, particularly in Israel. Regardless of evidence to the contrary,Illustrated by the above quotes from Netanyahu.

Also, don't make comments about "Talking points" when little or nothing I posted is being pushed by either side.I certainly don't see the convo between Netanyahu and Obama posted in mainstream media, let alone in republican talking points.Your comments imply I belong to one party or the other, or support their cause, or get my info from mainstream media replete with talking points. I would suggest when reading my posts, read what it says, not what you think it implies,as I am generally content, at least when posting source material to put it out there and let facts speak for themselves.I get my info from multiple sources, then form my own opinions.If there is some crossover with what someone else is spewing, please, don't bellittle it by labeling it as talking point, especially when you promote a party line yourself.You are as shrill as anyone else, don't kid yourself.

For the sake of clarity I'll say I don't like the current administration, or it's policies, or how it handles foreign affairs, and that it's made a bungle of things.I also felt the same way about the last administration and their policies.

My initial post was to put up the conversation between the Israeli prime minister, and the Us president ( for the simple reason I DIDN'T see it in anyone talking point or in the mainstream media) that demanded a ceasefire on Hamas's terms, and I still see it as a major policy shift from the position the Us has held regarding Israel for the past 47 years. I'm sorry, but I think that's noteworthy and not particularly common knowledge.I thought, and still do think it's something that merits attention, and something that may take some time to digest. Sorry if I, recently banned messenger, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, thereby obfuscating what I was trying to say.That I don't like this administration is an aside, and was not the point.We can debate the merits of a shift in position by the US and for all you know, I may well support it.Don't assume.

ThatSaid - thanks for the figures on S. Korea, I had a hunch (but only a hunch) that US military spending there - given the huge armed presence - might rival the US $ support to Israel's defense. Not to mention potential human cost should the shit hit the fan there...

montana are you being disingenuous?

Quote:

What does it matter what we spend in S. Korea? montanagiant : 12:59 pm : link : reply

No biggie, but you and Ronnie seem awfully bugged by my criticism of Kerry and lack of "appreciation" for all the money the US spends supporting the Israeli defense budget. So I was curious what actual dollar amount and % of S. Korea's defense budget the US supports, just as a counterpoint to Ronnie's bitch, that you echo.

And really? The US armed "presence in S. Korea goes much further then just aiding the ROK."

But the US support of Israel doesn't "go much farther than aiding the IDF?" Really?

How quickly one forgets that Israel took out Syria's secret nuclear facility, one which ironically was modeled after and built with the help of none other than North Korea...

Quote:

On September 6, 2007, in a surprise dawn attack, seven Israeli warplanes destroyed an industrial facility near al-Kibar, Syria, later identified by the CIA as a nearly completed nuclear reactor secretly under construction since 2001.[1] According to the CIA, the unit was built with North Korean assistance and was modeled on one used by North Korea to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

(link below)

Certainly one of the biggest modern threats to US security is that nuclear weapons might end up in the hands of terrorists?
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor - ( New Window )

I don't see why you'd need to beat Obama to death with your bare hands when you can just harness your "qi" and fire a haduken at him, street fighter style.

And he and Obama have taken a decent enough tongue lashing from BB.

Lastly I never claimed to have developed that level of Ki and control over it.

That was my (South Korean) master, whose baby brother was one of the ROK marines top hand fighting teachers, just to bring this full circle.

Nice to see you're still concerned about issues you know so little about.

and brother-in-law were/are (Once a marine...) ROK marines. Scary dudes.

80 year old father-in-law could kick my ass, no sweat. Biceps like baseballs.

In comment 11790879 That Said said:

Quote:

In comment 11790867 montanagiant said: Quote: Has not one ting to do with what we assist Israel with. We are not cutting funding to Israel and moving it there, or having to make a decision of one or the other. Our presence in S. Korea goes much further then just aiding the ROK. Don't shoot the messenger. Just doing a bit of research for BlueLou. He asked. ;) BTW: I spend six months of the year in the ROK, teaching. I'm fully aware of why we're there.

My post was not addressing your post, it was for those that brought it up as some kind of argument regarding Israel

In comment 11790990 BlueLou said:

Quote:

ThatSaid - thanks for the figures on S. Korea, I had a hunch (but only a hunch) that US military spending there - given the huge armed presence - might rival the US $ support to Israel's defense. Not to mention potential human cost should the shit hit the fan there... montana are you being disingenuous? No, I'm pointing out that S Korea has zero bearing on Israel. And it's not that I'm bugged about your opinion, I am bugged by the habit of not giving credit where it is due. Quote: What does it matter what we spend in S. Korea? montanagiant : 12:59 pm : link : reply No biggie, but you and Ronnie seem awfully bugged by my criticism of Kerry and lack of "appreciation" for all the money the US spends supporting the Israeli defense budget. So I was curious what actual dollar amount and % of S. Korea's defense budget the US supports, just as a counterpoint to Ronnie's bitch, that you echo. And really? The US armed "presence in S. Korea goes much further then just aiding the ROK." But the US support of Israel doesn't "go much farther than aiding the IDF?" Really? How quickly one forgets that Israel took out Syria's secret nuclear facility, one which ironically was modeled after and built with the help of none other than North Korea... Quote: On September 6, 2007, in a surprise dawn attack, seven Israeli warplanes destroyed an industrial facility near al-Kibar, Syria, later identified by the CIA as a nearly completed nuclear reactor secretly under construction since 2001.[1] According to the CIA, the unit was built with North Korean assistance and was modeled on one used by North Korea to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. (link below) Certainly one of the biggest modern threats to US security is that nuclear weapons might end up in the hands of terrorists? Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor - ( New Window )

In comment 11790901 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

Keep telling yourself there is no other "way of looking at it" which is all I said, I didn't say it was a fact, simply pointed out there are other perceptions,which you don't seem to recognize. It's one thing to acknowledge there are 2 points of view, it's something else entirely to make a case for either point.You asked me to marry myself to a position contrary to yours, make the case and prove it, which was never my intent, rather simply to point out your view is not universally held, particularly in Israel. Regardless of evidence to the contrary,Illustrated by the above quotes from Netanyahu. Also, don't make comments about "Talking points" when little or nothing I posted is being pushed by either side.I certainly don't see the convo between Netanyahu and Obama posted in mainstream media, let alone in republican talking points.Your comments imply I belong to one party or the other, or support their cause, or get my info from mainstream media replete with talking points. I would suggest when reading my posts, read what it says, not what you think it implies,as I am generally content, at least when posting source material to put it out there and let facts speak for themselves.I get my info from multiple sources, then form my own opinions.If there is some crossover with what someone else is spewing, please, don't bellittle it by labeling it as talking point, especially when you promote a party line yourself.You are as shrill as anyone else, don't kid yourself. For the sake of clarity I'll say I don't like the current administration, or it's policies, or how it handles foreign affairs, and that it's made a bungle of things.I also felt the same way about the last administration and their policies. My initial post was to put up the conversation between the Israeli prime minister, and the Us president ( for the simple reason I DIDN'T see it in anyone talking point or in the mainstream media) that demanded a ceasefire on Hamas's terms, and I still see it as a major policy shift from the position the Us has held regarding Israel for the past 47 years. I'm sorry, but I think that's noteworthy and not particularly common knowledge.I thought, and still do think it's something that merits attention, and something that may take some time to digest. Sorry if I, recently banned messenger, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, thereby obfuscating what I was trying to say.That I don't like this administration is an aside, and was not the point.We can debate the merits of a shift in position by the U S and for all you know, I may well support it.Don't assume.

Let's try it again. So you didn't state this admin was trying to dissolve the State of Israel???

You might want to read again what you wrote, because that was exactly what you claimed. Now your back crawling and trying to spin it as an opinion after the fact.. Maybe it's better we just deal with the facts and not slanted/ biased dies genius opinions.

..

no sweat. I get it. You may have noticed the ;) in my post.

Though we're not in BlueLou's boat, we (well, I do) sit on edge once in a while over there.
ROK and DPRK still technically at war and all that.

Far from it, actually...I am more than behind the Israeli operations. What I'm saying is that you're really turning into a whiny twat exhibiting little understanding of world politics beyond your little part of the world.

And unless you can tell me that Israel provides the United States a strategic base for power projection like S. Korea and Japan, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. But don't let the facts distract you from having any sense of objectivity to how our national security interests work.

In comment 11791056 montanagiant said:

Quote:

In comment 11790901 Great White Ghost said: Quote: Keep telling yourself there is no other "way of looking at it" which is all I said, I didn't say it was a fact, simply pointed out there are other perceptions,which you don't seem to recognize. It's one thing to acknowledge there are 2 points of view, it's something else entirely to make a case for either point.You asked me to marry myself to a position contrary to yours, make the case and prove it, which was never my intent, rather simply to point out your view is not universally held, particularly in Israel. Regardless of evidence to the contrary,Illustrated by the above quotes from Netanyahu. Also, don't make comments about "Talking points" when little or nothing I posted is being pushed by either side.I certainly don't see the convo between Netanyahu and Obama posted in mainstream media, let alone in republican talking points.Your comments imply I belong to one party or the other, or support their cause, or get my info from mainstream media replete with talking points. I would suggest when reading my posts, read what it says, not what you think it implies,as I am generally content, at least when posting source material to put it out there and let facts speak for themselves.I get my info from multiple sources, then form my own opinions.If there is some crossover with what someone else is spewing, please, don't bellittle it by labeling it as talking point, especially when you promote a party line yourself.You are as shrill as anyone else, don't kid yourself. For the sake of clarity I'll say I don't like the current administration, or it's policies, or how it handles foreign affairs, and that it's made a bungle of things.I also felt the same way about the last administration and their policies. My initial post was to put up the conversation between the Israeli prime minister, and the Us president ( for the simple reason I DIDN'T see it in anyone talking point or in the mainstream media) that demanded a ceasefire on Hamas's terms, and I still see it as a major policy shift from the position the Us has held regarding Israel for the past 47 years. I'm sorry, but I think that's noteworthy and not particularly common knowledge.I thought, and still do think it's something that merits attention, and something that may take some time to digest. Sorry if I, recently banned messenger, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, thereby obfuscating what I was trying to say.That I don't like this administration is an aside, and was not the point.We can debate the merits of a shift in position by the U S and for all you know, I may well support it.Don't assume. Let's try it again. So you didn't state this admin was trying to dissolve the State of Israel??? You might want to read again what you wrote, because that was exactly what you claimed. Now your back crawling and trying to spin it as an opinion after the fact.. Maybe it's better we just deal with the facts and not slanted/ biased dies genius opinions.

Thats is correct sir. I did NOT say this administration is trying to dissolve the state of IsraeL.I know what I wrote, and if you go back and read it, I said quite clearly that it was "another way to look at it", the point being that some do, Israelis in particular and they don't appreciate it.Again, I never said I looked at it that way.

What I said was that his actions are viewed by many as possibly leading to it. It's a pretty simple concept, dude, it's not that hard to follow.If you are going to tell me you have a crystal ball and can assure us all that accepting peace on Hamas terms and returning to the 67 borders could never result in the destruction of Israel, particularly by an organization that still calls for it's destruction in it's founding charter, then your just batshit nuts.

All I'm saying is some people looking at the situation aren't nearly as overwhelmed with some sort of sense of gratitude that you feel Israel owes the U.S. (your espoused view) as much as they feel dread and resentment and abandonment at the realization that the US president tried to DICTATE terms, flat out,to Netanyahu, along lines that favored Hamas and reversed 47 years of US policy.

If you continue to play dumb like you don't understand the distinction between the 2 points of view, and that the second is widely held would indicate to me. You are, as another poster said, disingenuous.

I like Hamas.

Some nice garlic Hamas with pita bread.. Mmmmmm..

In comment 11791090 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

All I'm saying is some people looking at the situation aren't nearly as overwhelmed with some sort of sense of gratitude that you feel Israel owes the U.S. (your espoused view) as much as they feel dread and resentment and abandonment at the realization that the US president tried to DICTATE terms, flat out,to Netanyahu, along lines that favored Hamas and reversed 47 years of US policy.

I don't know. I'm not speaking for montana here, but there is a huge gulf between Israelis owing the U.S. "some sort of gratitude" and Israelis (and those associated with Israel) bitching about the U.S. not doing enough (or fucking up) for them. I don't think montana is saying that Israel should show gratitude as much as Israel shouldn't be bitching about the help they are getting because they don't think it's enough or not the right kind. The U.S. still has to navigate through the complex geopolitical world that goes beyond the borders of Israel. And while extremely important to the regional security, the situation in Israel is just one of many that the U.S. has to tread cautiously around.

In comment 11791218 Sarcastic Sam said:

Quote:

I like Hamas. Some nice garlic Hamas with pita bread.. Mmmmmm..

What a dip

ganoush.

In comment 11791266 RC02XX said:

Quote:

In comment 11791090 Great White Ghost said: Quote: All I'm saying is some people looking at the situation aren't nearly as overwhelmed with some sort of sense of gratitude that you feel Israel owes the U.S. (your espoused view) as much as they feel dread and resentment and abandonment at the realization that the US president tried to DICTATE terms, flat out,to Netanyahu, along lines that favored Hamas and reversed 47 years of US policy. I don't know. I'm not speaking for montana here, but there is a huge gulf between Israelis owing the U.S. "some sort of gratitude" and Israelis (and those associated with Israel) bitching about the U.S. not doing enough (or fucking up) for them. I don't think montana is saying that Israel should show gratitude as much as Israel shouldn't be bitching about the help they are getting because they don't think it's enough or not the right kind. The U.S. still has to navigate through the complex geopolitical world that goes beyond the borders of Israel. And while extremely important to the regional security, the situation in Israel is just one of many that the U.S. has to tread cautiously around.

I agree with everything you said.every last bit of it.if you look at it as a choice between being grateful or ungrateful, they should be grateful.I still think the whole thing with trying to dictate Hamas's terms to israel is unaccaptable and kind of nullifies everything else at the moment, at least to some people. Myself, I think if it works out, fine, if it doesn't, then, like I said, who needs to be grateful if it works out where yeah, we helped with one hand and take away with the other.to my mind it was never a question of, are we doing enough and is it the right kind of aid.for that, Honestly between you and me I think they SHOULD be thankful. To be otherwise WOULD be ungrateful. I believe that, I'm not just saying it.And Like an old Arab, I bear my own grudge towards Israel, over the USS liberty, that they never made right for and never apologized or took responsibility for, even as I support Israel overall as our only NATURAL ally in the region, inasmuch as it's the only democracy.And it does make me angry to hear comments by israeli politicians whereby they think they have us on a leash as their dogs.I get all that and that point of view. I really really do.

What I'm saying is we need to think about what we, the US are doing, we need ti understand our ally Israel, for all it's warts, has it's own perspective, and it's own considerations, and right now they feel threatened, rightfully so, and if we offset the benefits of any aid we send then by forcing them to accept terms that compromise their integrity, including their territorial integrity ( because that's exactly what the terms of Kerry's proposal did) then many will view it as we aren't really doing them any favors, And I have to say at this point I'm inclined to agree.Which is why they are asking us to just leave them the fuck alone, but please keep sending the bullets.

In comment 11791069 That Said said:

Quote:

no sweat. I get it. You may have noticed the ;) in my post. Though we're not in BlueLou's boat, we (well, I do) sit on edge once in a while over there. ROK and DPRK still technically at war and all that.

Yeah through my wife i have some ties there. My Father-in-law ran military security there during the 80's. Wife and her 2 sisters taught English there for 3 years.

In comment 11791090 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

In comment 11791056 montanagiant said: Quote: In comment 11790901 Great White Ghost said: Quote: Keep telling yourself there is no other "way of looking at it" which is all I said, I didn't say it was a fact, simply pointed out there are other perceptions,which you don't seem to recognize. It's one thing to acknowledge there are 2 points of view, it's something else entirely to make a case for either point.You asked me to marry myself to a position contrary to yours, make the case and prove it, which was never my intent, rather simply to point out your view is not universally held, particularly in Israel. Regardless of evidence to the contrary,Illustrated by the above quotes from Netanyahu. Also, don't make comments about "Talking points" when little or nothing I posted is being pushed by either side.I certainly don't see the convo between Netanyahu and Obama posted in mainstream media, let alone in republican talking points.Your comments imply I belong to one party or the other, or support their cause, or get my info from mainstream media replete with talking points. I would suggest when reading my posts, read what it says, not what you think it implies,as I am generally content, at least when posting source material to put it out there and let facts speak for themselves.I get my info from multiple sources, then form my own opinions.If there is some crossover with what someone else is spewing, please, don't bellittle it by labeling it as talking point, especially when you promote a party line yourself.You are as shrill as anyone else, don't kid yourself. For the sake of clarity I'll say I don't like the current administration, or it's policies, or how it handles foreign affairs, and that it's made a bungle of things.I also felt the same way about the last administration and their policies. My initial post was to put up the conversation between the Israeli prime minister, and the Us president ( for the simple reason I DIDN'T see it in anyone talking point or in the mainstream media) that demanded a ceasefire on Hamas's terms, and I still see it as a major policy shift from the position the Us has held regarding Israel for the past 47 years. I'm sorry, but I think that's noteworthy and not particularly common knowledge.I thought, and still do think it's something that merits attention, and something that may take some time to digest. Sorry if I, recently banned messenger, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, thereby obfuscating what I was trying to say.That I don't like this administration is an aside, and was not the point.We can debate the merits of a shift in position by the U S and for all you know, I may well support it.Don't assume. Let's try it again. So you didn't state this admin was trying to dissolve the State of Israel??? You might want to read again what you wrote, because that was exactly what you claimed. Now your back crawling and trying to spin it as an opinion after the fact.. Maybe it's better we just deal with the facts and not slanted/ biased dies genius opinions. Thats is correct sir. I did NOT say this administration is trying to dissolve the state of IsraeL.I know what I wrote, and if you go back and read it, I said quite clearly that it was "another way to look at it", the point being that some do, Israelis in particular and they don't appreciate it.Again, I never said I looked at it that way. What I said was that his actions are viewed by many as possibly leading to it. It's a pretty simple concept, dude, it's not that hard to follow.If you are going to tell me you have a crystal ball and can assure us all that accepting peace on Hamas terms and returning to the 67 borders could never result in the destruction of Israel, particularly by an organization that still calls for it's destruction in it's founding charter, then your just batshit nuts. All I'm saying is some people looking at the situation aren't nearly as overwhelmed with some sort of sense of gratitude that you feel Israel owes the U.S. (your espoused view) as much as they feel dread and resentment and abandonment at the realization that the US president tried to DICTATE terms, flat out,to Netanyahu, along lines that favored Hamas and reversed 47 years of US policy. If you continue to play dumb like you don't understand the distinction between the 2 points of view, and that the second is widely held would indicate to me. You are, as another poster said, disingenuous.

lol...Ok, this is the third different spin you have put on your claim so i will once again re-frame the question using your newest excuse for what you wrote:

How can you have the perception that this admin's policies are working towards dissolving the Israel State given the fact that they will have shortly put 1 billion into the "Iron Dome" defense system that specifically protects the "Jewish State"?

Look the issue here is that your dislike of the admin is causing you to make ridiculous over-the-top claims that completely ignore actual facts. Your using a delicate situation for your own slanted political arguments, which ironically if it was not for their funding decisions towards Israel, that dissolving of the Israel state you throw around had a much better chance if happening.

In comment 11791266 RC02XX said:

Quote:

In comment 11791090 Great White Ghost said: Quote: All I'm saying is some people looking at the situation aren't nearly as overwhelmed with some sort of sense of gratitude that you feel Israel owes the U.S. (your espoused view) as much as they feel dread and resentment and abandonment at the realization that the US president tried to DICTATE terms, flat out,to Netanyahu, along lines that favored Hamas and reversed 47 years of US policy. I don't know. I'm not speaking for montana here, but there is a huge gulf between Israelis owing the U.S. "some sort of gratitude" and Israelis (and those associated with Israel) bitching about the U.S. not doing enough (or fucking up) for them. I don't think montana is saying that Israel should show gratitude as much as Israel shouldn't be bitching about the help they are getting because they don't think it's enough or not the right kind. The U.S. still has to navigate through the complex geopolitical world that goes beyond the borders of Israel. And while extremely important to the regional security, the situation in Israel is just one of many that the U.S. has to tread cautiously around.

BINGO!!!! but they knew that already, it just did not help their argument to say that.