Could someone tell me why the amercan government have a history of sponsoring israel financially?

I was under the impression that America funds other governments because indirectly sooner or later that would mean financial profit for Americas captains of industry....

where exactly is the profit?

Or could it be that i have been suffering from misconception and that America sponsors other governments for ideologig reasons?

Originally posted by Vortexx
Could someone tell me why the amercan government have a history of sponsoring israel financially?

I was under the impression that America funds other governments because indirectly sooner or later that would mean financial profit for Americas captains of industry....

where exactly is the profit?

Or could it be that i have been suffering from misconception and that America sponsors other governments for ideologig reasons?

It has nothing to do with profit. It has to do with the second coming of Christ. Remember it will not happened untill the Jews will take over the whole palestine area and will establish the new temple in jeruslam or soemthing like that.

Originally posted by skywalker
It has nothing to do with profit. It has to do with the second coming of Christ.hahaha. Good humour. I like that. If you take your head out of your ass, I am sure you will see the real world.Your own response seemed so appropriate.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by goofyfish
Your own response seemed so appropriate.

:rolleyes:


It is not me. It is from Dateline three days ago. I didn't make it up.

Talking about Aide...U.S. mulls big aid package for Israel

WASHINGTON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Tuesday it was considering a multibillion-dollar aid package for Israel, including cash and equipment for its military and loan guarantees to boost the country's battered economy.

Talks with Israel are part of a broader diplomatic effort by Washington to ready the region for a possible war with Iraq. Turkey and other U.S. allies have also started negotiating aid packages with Washington.

Israel is seeking up to $4 billion in extra military assistance and $8 billion to $10 billion in loan guarantees to help battle its worst economic slowdown, according to administration sources and lobbyists. (Full text here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=1811827))
like to hear more?
Israel Seeks More U.S. Military Aid

By BARRY SCHWEID
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Israel is asking the Bush administration for about $4 billion in new military aid and $8 billion to $10 billion in loan guarantees to bolster its economy, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and the director general of Israel's finance ministry, Ohad Marani, made the request at a meeting Monday with Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser.

The Israeli Embassy declined to disclose how much help was requested, but said the Israelis were promised a prompt reply. An administration official provided the price tag on condition of anonymity. (Full text here (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-mideast1127nov26,0,4718804.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines))
Moderator Edit – reduce length of quoted stories

Israel is the only country in the region that likes us. We basically just want to have a friend over there, so we bought one.

Israel also has a very large and powerful lobbying group in the United States.

The Reader's Digest version, but basically accurate. :D

Originally posted by skywalker
It is not me. It is from Dateline three days ago. I didn't make it up.So you post it as representative of your view, but don't or can't continue to argue its validity? That is the peril of parroting someone else's view as your own. Hopefully you can avoid this pitfall in the future.     ;)

Peace.

Originally posted by Vortexx
where exactly is the profit?


Monetary foreign aid to Israel in 2000 is about $1.8B. They spend slightly more than $1.8B just in weapon alone from US. Plus Israel runs a very large trade deficit.

Originally posted by goofyfish
The Reader's Digest version, but basically accurate. :D

So you post it as representative of your view, but don't or can't continue to argue its validity? That is the peril of parroting someone else's view as your own. Hopefully you can avoid this pitfall in the future.     ;)

Peace.

Ahh. there you go again. Ok. I posted it as a possible explanation. the program was Nightline not dateline, it was showing why the goverment's religious parties are supporting israel and why it is important to build the temple etc etc. Where dfid you see as view? my view or any view? It was an the answer direcetly to question posted in this thread. My o my what have you made out of my simple reply.:rolleyes:


Here is some text, full transcripts are not av available but you can check out the website if you want.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/index.html

Strange Bedfellows
Tuesday,
Nov. 26
The Christian Right in the United States has become Israel's staunchest ally, raising money, and more importantly, throwing their considerable political weight behind the Sharon government.

Originally posted by skywalker
Where dfid you see as view? my view or any view?As any view?

Well, someone made the statement; that would be an expression of their view. Since you did not quote the material or indicate it was the opinion of someone other than yourself, the members of this forum can only conclude that you authored it. Lastly, since you presented it as being your thoughts, intentionally or otherwise, we might reasonably expect you to comment intelligently on it.

Peace.

So Joeman, if I understand you correctly, it would not be in the financial interest of the captains of industry to end the conflict in the middle east?

Originally posted by Vortexx
So Joeman, if I understand you correctly, it would not be in the financial interest of the captains of industry to end the conflict in the middle east?

Whenever you have war, the stock plummets across the board. (with exception of defense stocks. They go higher) In general having long lasting peace is always best interest for shareholders. War means economic disruptions.

That is something to remember when the Bush administration ask the middle class american to unite behind the american flag and march to Bagdad.

Maybe that explains why Bush senior didn't push through the gates of Bagdad the previous time, it would as he said "disturb the delicate balance of power in the middle-east". And that would obviously be bad for the bussiness.


However, since Saddam is no longer generating much profit for the captains of industry and he wants a too large piece of the cake for himself, it's time to remove him from power....

So our motive should be economics rather than humanitarian?

Originally posted by Vortexx
That is something to remember when the Bush administration ask the middle class american to unite behind the american flag and march to Bagdad.

Maybe that explains why Bush senior didn't push through the gates of Bagdad the previous time, it would as he said "disturb the delicate balance of power in the middle-east". And that would obviously be bad for the bussiness.


However, since Saddam is no longer generating much profit for the captains of industry and he wants a too large piece of the cake for himself, it's time to remove him from power....

That is not how I see it.

In general peace always comes at a price if you look at the history. If you haven't paid the price, you either pay for it now or pay more later. From studying 7000 years of Chinese history, you will learn whenever you have peace that last a long time, people have made sacrifices. When you have peace that you don't deserve, you pay for it more later.

That is the same as European history in last few decades. Europe wanted peace at all cost when Hitler was in power. Instead of fighting Hitler before he got really big, Europe choose to fight a much bigger war later.

When Saddam gets his weapons of mass destruction, you will have the same thing.

Peace is not something you get for free. When the price for peace becomes too great, you have to take a different approach.

Originally posted by Joeman
That is the same as European history in last few decades. Europe wanted peace at all cost when Hitler was in power. Instead of fighting Hitler before he got really big, Europe choose to fight a much bigger war later.

When Saddam gets his weapons of mass destruction, you will have the same thing.

Peace is not something you get for free. When the price for peace becomes too great, you have to take a different approach.

That's not the same.

People knew what Hitler was doing. We have no evidence that Iraq has WMD.

You support allies in their time of need in the hopes that they will do the same when the tables have turned.