War in the Middle East

Far easier, and cheaper, to have a permenant deterrent stationed nearby than to intervene every time. (And more effective than just slinging a missile in from afar).

Israel's arsenals (nukes included) could definitely be used as a long-term threat to stop Iran ever attempting the oil-pricing games of 73 again - for example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that threat has helped keep OPEC playing nice as a whole all this time.

Stopping that particular trade game is worth billions to the US - and the wider world as well, for that matter.

Sure. But the hypothetical billions i mention above might make it worth their while.

Yeah, but like i say, 'the facts on the ground' are always the most pressing - and occupying.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

cheaper? to fund an entire army outside of the us? no...i don't think it is...besides, what interventions are we talking about here? threats made to Israel?

threats as in, if you try to make an extra-profit from oil we're gonna nuke you? well that's just peachy....
and last i heard, oil was closing in on a houndred bucks per gallon ( i may have the wrong mesurement there ), Iran is making money without even trying to jack up the prices....in fact, the possible intervention is one of the reasons why the prices have gone up no?




nope, they're losing those billions as we speak regardless of the billions invested in Israel.

facts on the ground say 9.11. happened....i wonder why....

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Again, when the result is continued/stable access to vital oil reserves, the price would struggle to be high enough.

As much as having settled forces in Saudi Arabia etc is probably a preferable set-up, the US undoubtably feels it needs to cover as many bases as possible (excuse the pun) in its efforts to influence certain key policies in the Middle East.

On the interventions front, i was saying it's ****ing expensive to mount efforts like, say, the Iraq invasion. Having a standing army that can influence the region simply by threat, rather than action, is bound to be cheaper in many ways.

(The other intervention alternatives, of lobbing the odd missile that way from a ship for example, is fairly ineffective - and doesn't come with the benefit of having 'feelers on the ground').

Potentially. But it wouldn't just be to deter 'extra' profit making. It'd be to deter 'holding the world to ransom' style price-fixing as seen in the early 70s etc.

Iraq is one of the key reasons for oil prices spiralling. Opec has done nothing outrageous to over-facilitate this.

The money the whole market is losing due to price rises still doesn't come close to how much worse it would be if OPEC were allowed to dictate prices with impunity.

Sure, but this ultimately supports my argument more than yours. The initial question was: Why has the US consistantly invested so much in Israel over the years.

They'd have to have a damn good reason to invest so much, and to increase the hatred and potential aggression that comes with it.

You say they do all this coz of some Jewish conspiracy? I say bollocks. There's no way successive administrations would have taken on that kind of burden (or been allowed to) simply because of lobbyists or personal beliefs. They've gotta see either dollar or national-security 'profit' in there somewhere or they simply wouldn't be so profligate, or risky.

I say it's far more likely they're trying to influence the region. And again, i can only stress that Middle Eastern oil has been, and still is, vital to the US economy. The idea that they would want to ensure oil-access and affordability makes a hell of a lot more geopolitical sense. That's all.

ok, you make sense ( as usual )..but how about this:
first - in my opinion, Iran isn't enough to make the prices of oil go up and it certainly couldn't hold the world to ransom, it's not the only oil producer, nor the biggest producer of oil...i think that would be Russia and Saudi Arabia...both more than willing to cooperate....

second - does having a ground force ready and willing to intervene to any problem automatically mean the approval of ANY act of Israel towards the Palestinians/Syrians/Lebanese?

third - Lebanon had a pretty big Christian population that controled the land until the civil war, much hated by the arabs yada yada. why not choose Lebanon as their base for middle east operations and support that minority ( like for instance, the jews were a minority at the begining of the state of Israel) and arm the f*ckers to the tooth?

forth - in what way has funding and the unquestioned support of Israel influenced the middle eastern policies ( apart from stopping the anihilation of the state of Israel )? Iran seems utterly unimpressed by Israel's fighting power and do as they please, Iraq didn't seem to care a helluva lot either...Saudi Arabia has already chosen a friendly approach....who am i forgetting?

fifth - i never said Iran was the sole factor for the rise of oil prices, but it WAS one of the factors certainly, unless the news people have deceived me once more, i seem to recolect them saying " the oil prices have gone up once again due to the tension surrounding Iran and the nuclear weapons crisys"

what say you? any validity at all in my posts or are we just going arround in circles?

naturally, my claim that this is all because the evil jews control the world was an exaggeration, you're right in saying there has to be more, much more to it...but i still think it was one of the major reasons why America has started protecting Israel and has continued to do so....

Not on their own. But i was suggesting the US tries to influence the whole region, not just Iran. Although they're still influential in many ways.

In case you haven't noticed, Russia aren't exactly on friendly terms with the US either. The current influence-technique seems to be the offer of 'G8' membership etc, in exchange for industrial access to their oil fields.

Of course not. But...

a) If Israel is acting as a proxy in exchange for investment (which i'm sure they are), they're still putting their necks on the line - and can be expected to be allowed 'off the leash' on other matters.

b) This current clash smacks of a 'proxy war' between Iran and the US in the first place.

c) If this is just Israel acting on their own, it's liable that they think it's a national security issue - and the US wouldn't have a problem with the idea of Israel maintaining its sovreignty/physical integrity etc.

d) Oil comes first.


My suspicion is that, because Israel is based on immigrants from European/American-type regions for the most part, especially initially, the US has more personal-and-cultural contact and affinity with its leadership. And this underlying affinity has persisted.

That's not to say that the States, and others, haven't curried favour, and wielded the stick, everywhere they possibly can - but Israel has developed into a corner of the Middle-East that can be relied on to be 'what it is' - consistantly. And what it is is a culture that the US has strong links with.

(This is the closest you'll get to a Jewish-US cultural/religious conspiracy incidentally, i reckon )

That's why i said it's just one touchstone in the US's attempts to build an architecture of influence in the Middle East.

The threat of force that Israel provides is still blatantly useful, but it can't resolve all issues, nor touch all areas (both physically and culturally).

Don't doubt that it's played a large role in keeping many of the states in that region toeing the line tho.

Yeah, but just one of many. And of course everyone's always trying to push the limits in these games.

Plenty. And this feels like progression to me.

I still say Jewish lobbying - and even cultural affinity - can't account for the degree to which the US has supported Israel. ****, for that matter, not even nutty-Rapturist lobbyists can account for it. I don't believe the US political system is that demented . I believe it's almost entirely pragmatic.

ok, you have succesfully changed my mind, your logic is flawless.

to change the topic slightly, as i said in a comment to your post, i'm very interested to know ( and i'm focusing on America right now ) why certain groups of people, gentiles as the jews would call them, therefore supposedly neutral choose Israel's side in allmost all matters ( if i'm not mistaken pro-Israelis tend to be conservative republicans ) whilst others ( mostly liberal democrats ) tend to be more sympathetic to the plight of the palestinians ( yes i'm being biased once more )...any thoughts on that?

Blimey. Flawless? That sounds unlikely

It is a weird phenomenon innit. (But so's the 'division of traits' which seems to occur, to a degree, between left and right leaners worldwide).

I guess, for a start, it sort of helps that both sides can be seen as underdogs - although in distinct ways. Perhaps a stereotypical Rep prefers to side with the prosperous, hawkish, 'straight-fighting' Israelis, while the bleeding-heart stereotypical Dem sees more to root for in the impoverished and pushed-around Palestinians?

The most obvious reason for a Republican-Israel link would be the religion aspect i guess, as it seems they're more Christian/Evangelical affiliated - religious slants that often lie very much in line with Zionist-style aspirations (especially if they're Rapturists. Ugh).

Who knows basically. I automatically lean slightly more towards the Palestinians, and i'm not sure why. I'm guessing it's the 'bleeding heart' aspect that's brings out that underdog-protectiveness in me.

---
EDIT
---

And on reflection - it's probably knowing/guessing, in the back of my mind, that Israel works as a proxy-state for the US that makes me have trouble sympathising with them - or seeing them as truly ground-down. Even tho i don't necessarily condemn, 'geopolitically', what's done through them in the name of keeping the oil flowing freely.

Interesting Lebanon-based Israel-hook-up blog

Although the apparently controversial artwork which underpins it is currently AWOL.

too bad the drawing isn't there anymore....

the explanations of the Israelis were expected....in their minds, the abduction of two soldiers justifies the murder of houndreds of lebanese...."oh yeah, sorry about that....but what can you do...you sorta had it coming you know...hope we can still be friends"

plenty of insanity down there...

Ay. And yeah, the justifications are as intriguing/entrenched as ever, from all and sundry. Even on a 'non-political' blog. (A couple of the Israeli posters did make me wonder whether Fox has an 'embedded' channel out there tho ).

This guy gives some interesting, if brief and conjectural, thoughts on what's going on.

These rapturist guys, on the other hand, are just nuts. And thankfully in a minority.

Hopefully

and i have learned a new word...the rapture...finally i know why The Rapture took that name....*silly croatian prone to digression*

This made me laugh a little...

this is the truth.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

It's absurd exaggeration and oversimplification, actually.

Well yeah, it's a political cartoon. That's what they do.

It has, however, the ring of truth to it, which is significant.

It's definitely not 'the truth'.

And neither is this...




But inflammation will follow excessive use of the 'ring of truth'

Reminds me of antisemitic Muslim-extremist propaganda, actually.

Because, you know, any people who believe at their core that no Jews or Christians can be trusted are probably more reliable than the people who DIDN'T spend their entire existence killing off themselves.

What are you on about here? Christians have devoted lavish amounts of time to massacring each other - and made some sizable inroads into Jewish populations at different times too. (I don't know how much Jew-on-Jew anti-love there's been over the centuries, but if there ain't much i'd put that down more to there being a scarcity of 'Jewish lands' rubbing each other up the wrong way)

I'm not sure that saying that 'Muslims like fighting amongst themselves' (which is what you seem to be saying) really distinguishes them from the rest of humanity.

Hmm funny how i don't remember anyone saying that about the cartoon portraying the muslim prophet as a terrorist.

Maybe ill go make a drawing of the double standard that infiltrates every waking moment in my life.

Why does that matter, exactly? I don't know if someone out there has a double-standard regarding those two cartoons (assuming they're on par with one another to begin with), but it isn't me, so I don't see the relevance of what you're saying.

A double standard like violently protesting a cartoon that dares accuse your people of being violent?