<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's another email about Senator Obama's visit to a base in a combat zone from an impeccable source - the first two paragraphs are redacted to protect the author (a 23 year vet of more than one branch of the military):</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>MY MEETING (ALMOST) WITH OBAMA <...> I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base. While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here. This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself. When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right? 95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required. Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day. Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base's senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who'd made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed. Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer, so he's not a practicing Muslim. He was in a convoy guarded by (so I'm told) both State Department and Secret Service Personnel. Less than three hours… Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything. Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn't even know he arrived the second time at this base. I can't imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we're winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can't fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from "change." In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama's strategic theory. Since he obviously knew in advance that's what they'd tell him, and since he didn't care to talk to the troops (we're told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is. A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign. In comparison, I've seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It's very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It's equally clear mister Obama does not. From here we must move to my op part of the oped. Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq. That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."</div> Source
Pretty radical article. You can say he has different views, or the wrong message, not that he "doesn't care about America".
bullshit propaganda. It seems to be everywhere, coming from all directions these days. The whole website contains more rantings from some schizophrenic military guy, with links to John Huckabee!
ROTR, you think he's not a real soldier? You think he's not recounting what his fellow soldiers talk about? Or the mess hall being not full? The guy's there where the rubber meets the road, no? If he think we are close to winning and that's how we should go out, it should carry some weight.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>ROTR, you think he's not a real soldier? You think he's not recounting what his fellow soldiers talk about? Or the mess hall being not full? The guy's there where the rubber meets the road, no? If he think we are close to winning and that's how we should go out, it should carry some weight.</div> I removed the "ex-" from "miltary". It looks better now.
This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>bullshit propaganda. It seems to be everywhere, coming from all directions these days. The whole website contains more rantings from some schizophrenic military guy, with links to John Huckabee! </div> Eh, as much as you probably wouldn't want to admit it, that site contains quite a bit of factual information. The person who runs the site is also an ex-military member who now devotes his time to various military related causes. Most of the horrible things you hear about Obama are true, I guess the question is weather or not you want to hear it. Personally, if something really bad came out about McCain, I'd want to know beyond the shadow of the doubt, and provided it was true I would not just discount it because it clashed with my political opinion. I'm not saying it's an unbias site because clearly it is conservative oriented, but that doesn't mean it's not true. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Pretty radical article. You can say he has different views, or the wrong message, not that he "doesn't care about America".</div> Obama cares a whole lot more about getting into the oval office than he does about America...If his friends are any judge (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers) I'd say based on track record he is pretty anti-american in more than one way. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> I disagree, this war could have already have been over and done with, however as a people Americans do not have the stomach for that kind of fight any longer. With that said, right now we are closer to being able to pull out and not have catastrophic results than we ever have. If things keep going the way they are, I don't see why we couldn't have 90% of our troops out of Iraq by summer of next year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jul 24 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> Of course this war can be won. Sure it's a complicated war but so it goes when you're dealing with the Middle East. All we needed to do were listen to people like Gen. Petraeus and not follow the Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney plan of disaster, and things wouldn't have deteriorated the way they did. We can certainly win in Iraq, the alternative is much worse, and anti-war people don't understand why we can't just pull out now even if it were true that we never should have gotten in the first place.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 25 2008, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>bullshit propaganda. It seems to be everywhere, coming from all directions these days. The whole website contains more rantings from some schizophrenic military guy, with links to John Huckabee! </div> Eh, as much as you probably wouldn't want to admit it, that site contains quite a bit of factual information. The person who runs the site is also an ex-military member who now devotes his time to various military related causes. Most of the horrible things you hear about Obama are true, I guess the question is weather or not you want to hear it. Personally, if something really bad came out about McCain, I'd want to know beyond the shadow of the doubt, and provided it was true I would not just discount it because it clashed with my political opinion. I'm not saying it's an unbias site because clearly it is conservative oriented, but that doesn't mean it's not true. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Pretty radical article. You can say he has different views, or the wrong message, not that he "doesn't care about America".</div> Obama cares a whole lot more about getting into the oval office than he does about America...If his friends are any judge (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers) I'd say based on track record he is pretty anti-american in more than one way. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> I disagree, this war could have already have been over and done with, however as a people Americans do not have the stomach for that kind of fight any longer. With that said, right now we are closer to being able to pull out and not have catastrophic results than we ever have. If things keep going the way they are, I don't see why we couldn't have 90% of our troops out of Iraq by summer of next year. </div> Pretty low class to accuse someone of treason.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 25 2008, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jul 24 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> Of course this war can be won. Sure it's a complicated war but so it goes when you're dealing with the Middle East. All we needed to do were listen to people like Gen. Petraeus and not follow the Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney plan of disaster, and things wouldn't have deteriorated the way they did. We can certainly win in Iraq, the alternative is much worse, and anti-war people don't understand why we can't just pull out now even if it were true that we never should have gotten in the first place. </div> In my world, I want to see us pull out of that region, and this includes Israel. I have no problem letting Israel fight Iran and Syria on their own. Our billions of dollars in military and other aid could be better spent in other areas. Israel has been a huge point of contention between us and those nations, and removing support for them could make the place more peaceful for both us and them. To me, we should have never settled Israel in the first place. They wanted that area, let them defend it on their own.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 25 2008, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jul 24 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> Of course this war can be won. Sure it's a complicated war but so it goes when you're dealing with the Middle East. All we needed to do were listen to people like Gen. Petraeus and not follow the Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney plan of disaster, and things wouldn't have deteriorated the way they did. We can certainly win in Iraq, the alternative is much worse, and anti-war people don't understand why we can't just pull out now even if it were true that we never should have gotten in the first place. </div> In my world, I want to see us pull out of that region, and this includes Israel. I have no problem letting Israel fight Iran and Syria on their own. Our billions of dollars in military and other aid could be better spent in other areas. Israel has been a huge point of contention between us and those nations, and removing support for them could make the place more peaceful for both us and them. To me, we should have never settled Israel in the first place. They wanted that area, let them defend it on their own. </div> So you see no problem with Iran ethnically cleansing Israel? Because I assure you without our continued support that is exactly what would happen. What you are talking about would assure nuclear war in that region. Israel stands absolutely no chance against Iran militarily and would be forced to use their nuclear weapons to even have a fighting chance. Our backing of Israel adds stability to that region. And without our presence felt in the region oil prices would go through the roof, as if they already haven't, controlled by anti-american Islamic states. For the sake of preserving our country and way of life, I'm really happy we don't live in "your world" <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Pretty low class to accuse someone of treason.</div> Where did I do that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 25 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 25 2008, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jul 24 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> Of course this war can be won. Sure it's a complicated war but so it goes when you're dealing with the Middle East. All we needed to do were listen to people like Gen. Petraeus and not follow the Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney plan of disaster, and things wouldn't have deteriorated the way they did. We can certainly win in Iraq, the alternative is much worse, and anti-war people don't understand why we can't just pull out now even if it were true that we never should have gotten in the first place. </div> In my world, I want to see us pull out of that region, and this includes Israel. I have no problem letting Israel fight Iran and Syria on their own. Our billions of dollars in military and other aid could be better spent in other areas. Israel has been a huge point of contention between us and those nations, and removing support for them could make the place more peaceful for both us and them. To me, we should have never settled Israel in the first place. They wanted that area, let them defend it on their own. </div> So you see no problem with Iran ethnically cleansing Israel? Because I assure you without our continued support that is exactly what would happen. What you are talking about would assure nuclear war in that region. Israel stands absolutely no chance against Iran militarily and would be forced to use their nuclear weapons to even have a fighting chance. Our backing of Israel adds stability to that region. And without our presence felt in the region oil prices would go through the roof, as if they already haven't, controlled by anti-american Islamic states. For the sake of preserving our country and way of life, I'm really happy we don't live in "your world" <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Pretty low class to accuse someone of treason.</div> Where did I do that? </div> Don't worry about it. It looks immature as hell though. Just say he has the wrong ideas next time.
No actually I am worried about it, clearly I never accused anyone of treason you just jumped to that conclusion and are now making a retraction. I'd highly suggest you read the definition of treason before you make such outlandish accusations, because doing so without any shred of reasoning is, as you just stated, immature as hell.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 25 2008, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No actually I am worried about it, clearly I never accused anyone of treason you just jumped to that conclusion and are now making a retraction. I'd highly suggest you read the definition of treason before you make such outlandish accusations, because doing so without any shred of reasoning is, as you just stated, immature as hell.</div> You're so partisan, it is hard to take you seriously. People in the media have said the same thing for weeks now, and I made no retraction. Dude, you're accusing him of treason. You're saying he's a traitor, and you sound like a bitter kid to me. You need to relax, your posts are full of hate and they are quite unappealing. Less Bashing and more attacks on Obama's position is what I prefer reading.
I wouldn't accuse him of treason, but I would accuse him of putting Party and Ambition over what's best for the nation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 01:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't accuse him of treason, but I would accuse him of putting Party and Ambition over what's best for the nation.</div> I don't agree, because Political reconciliation is what the Dems are looking for. Dems don't think the Surge was the sole factor in our recent success, and doubt its long-term success in certain aspects. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why McCain Should Embrace Withdrawal Ilan Goldenberg Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's support for a timetable for the withdrawal of American combat forces has created a political firestorm in the United States with most of the commentary focused on how his statements reinforce Barack Obama's policies. John McCain and other proponents of a continued large U.S. presence in Iraq have dismissed Maliki's position as unimportant, arguing that it is "only" the result of the domestic political pressures inside Iraq. McCain is right that this is ultimately about Iraqi domestic politics. But insurgencies and counterinsurgency strategies are, at their very core, all about domestic politics. A close study of the Army's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine suggests that the Maliki government's position should be recognized as an important and positive development. It signals the beginning of the end of the Iraq War as the American military takes on an increasingly smaller role while handing off more responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces and withdrawing. Despite confusion and various halfhearted retractions from Iraqi politicians and attempted explanations by the White House, it is apparent that Maliki's statements represent a sea change inside Iraq. There is today a consensus within the Iraq body politic for setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American combat forces. The Iraqi public is overwhelmingly supportive of an American withdrawal. Muqtada al Sadr and other opponents of Maliki's coalition have always called for a withdrawal and made it one of the cornerstones of their political platform. Two weeks ago Maliki expressed similar views only pulling back after pressure from the White House. Iraq's National Security Advisor Mouwaffak al-Rubaie and Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi both reaffirmed this position in recent weeks and Maliki's spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh stated authoritatively on Monday that "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010." In fact, even the Bush administration has accepted this reality and is now negotiating "time horizons" as part of an agreement that will govern the legal status of American forces in Iraq. It is hard to imagine how these developments won't reshape or at least dramatically influence the military's COIN strategy in Iraq According to Army COIN Field Manual, written by General David Petraeus and considered the definitive work on the subject, "Political power is the central issue in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate." The government and the insurgents are in a competition for the support of the public and whichever side is able to provide security and basic services and govern legitimately is going to prevail. Iraq is more complicated than the average insurgency because, in addition to Sunni insurgents, the central government has had to deal with various Shi'a militias, al Qaeda in Iraq and other non-state actors. However, when dealing with all these groups the basic formula remains the same: security, services, and legitimacy. In this context the United States must listen to the Iraqi government's demands or risk endangering the gains that have been made during the past 18 months. Over that time the Iraqi government and its security forces have increasingly taken a more central role in providing security and have increased their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. However, one of the key elements still working against them is the heavy dependence on the U.S. military presence, which is highly unpopular inside Iraq. Thus, Maliki's recent declaration was not, as John McCain would have you believe, just the Iraqi government playing politics. Instead, it was a genuine attempt by the Iraqi government to increase its legitimacy with its people -- a critical element of counterinsurgency. One of the main factors limiting the Iraqi government?€™s credibility with its own people is its complete dependence on the United States. Maliki's declarations were meant to limit that perception and shore up domestic support. After coming out so strongly and publicly for a gradual American withdrawal, the Maliki government has made it all but impossible to walk back. If it were to now sign an agreement that did not include some specific target dates for withdrawal or that tried to preserve the permanent South Korea-like presence that John McCain has long advocated, it would be seen by its own people as a weak American puppet instead of the legitimate government that it must become. This could in turn lead to a dramatic opening for opponents of the government. For example, Muqtada Al Sadr, who has already used opposition to the U.S. military presence to his political advantage and still has the capacity to mobilize large numbers of Mehdi Army militiamen to fight on his behalf, could at some point decide to forgo political bargaining and return to fighting. Similarly, the former Sunni insurgents now known as the Sons of Iraq are currently cooperating with the U.S. military against Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, they still distrust the Maliki Government which has been slow to integrate them into the Iraqi Security Forces and may at some point choose to turn against the central government. A government that is seen as a complete puppet of the United States would find itself in a weakened position -- unable to garner the necessary support against these types of threats. Petraeus's counterinsurgency manual also makes clear the Iraqi Government's desire for a timeline should be seen as an important step forward: "The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. ... Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to Host Nation institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better." Of course, it is quite likely that, buoyed by its recent successes, the Maliki Government is overestimating its own capabilities and the U.S. should take care to withdraw carefully in a way that minimizes the likelihood of the situation deteriorating. But with that caveat in place, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates that this assertion of independence is an important step. It should be welcomed -- not derided as political posturing or suppressed by a White House seeking a permanent presence in Iraq. In the end, COIN doctrine tells us that Prime Minister Maliki's recent assertions are a crucial turning point as Iraqis being to declare their own independence. This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along. John McCain would be wise to accept this new reality and move to Obama's position, instead of continuing to reject the major breakthrough that has occurred.</div> http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...race_withdrawal </div> It is just a difference of opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 01:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 25 2008, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jul 24 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This war cannot be "won". Obama is pretty much asking for more help in Afganistan/Iraq from Europe. In my humble opinion, America have made so much of a mess in Iraq, that if they pulled out... I don't even want to think what would happen.</div> Of course this war can be won. Sure it's a complicated war but so it goes when you're dealing with the Middle East. All we needed to do were listen to people like Gen. Petraeus and not follow the Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney plan of disaster, and things wouldn't have deteriorated the way they did. We can certainly win in Iraq, the alternative is much worse, and anti-war people don't understand why we can't just pull out now even if it were true that we never should have gotten in the first place. </div> In my world, I want to see us pull out of that region, and this includes Israel. I have no problem letting Israel fight Iran and Syria on their own. Our billions of dollars in military and other aid could be better spent in other areas. Israel has been a huge point of contention between us and those nations, and removing support for them could make the place more peaceful for both us and them. To me, we should have never settled Israel in the first place. They wanted that area, let them defend it on their own. </div> Your 'facts' on Israel are completely wrong. Not only did 'we' NOT 'settle' Israel, the US was a very minor player both during Aliyot periods, and didn't become Israel's primary supplier of weaponry until after the Six Day War - which was the result of regional considerations that did not bear on Israel per se so much as preventing Soviet incursions. Nor does the US in fact 'support' Israel as people mistakenly believe. There is aid, equal to that which the US gives Egypt, but that aid is conditioned upon Israeli purchase of US military products with that money. That's one part of the equation. A second lies in the fact that the US can always play off Israel when necessary, such as it did during the first Gulf War. Yet another reason lies in Israel's technological and medical innovations, which are generally jointly-sponsored with benefits going to both the US and Israel, whether the product be the Arrow anti-missile system or a nanotech innovation for medical application. Oh, and the US can use Israel for its regional dirty work with considerable deniability, which worked for Israel's Osirak strike but didn't pan out in the Iran-Contra affair. So we've got trade, military and political interests and a card that can be played. That's a hell of a lot more than the US gets from many other countries it sends aid to - and those countries don't even have spending clauses like that of Israel. Switching tack, you clearly have no idea how much pressure the US has been putting on Israel to NOT act, while compelling the latter to act in accordance with regional US interests. If the US did pull a France (see DeGaulle circa 1967), guess who'd step right in? Hint: India and/or China. The net 'benefit' to the US would be zero - at best.
