Friends Without Benefits:Its Time to Say What We Already Know-America's Pakistan Policy isnt working

The words i think and in my opinion completely ruin an argument and show you to be horrible at debates.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...ry&idim=country:SAU&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en
Here's the per capita. It's been going up since the late 80s.

There's lots of reasons. For instance, Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't very popular. Neither is sticking up for Israel.

Apparently you can't understand that being allied with the entire region = good relations.

They're happier too in a round-about way.

No, their governments love us at least for their own intrest.

Not really. I mean obviously China isn't such a bad trade partner, but they're mostly low end manufactoring. You need someone with a more developed economy, say, America or Russia. Russia of course having lost most of it's power after the USSR fell. So no, they don't have many options yet. Maybe China later, but China isn't exactly a friend you'd like to have.

And even more people from Japan and South Korea want us to stay. Actually we may be better off leaving Japan since it's already developed and such. It's redundant, I think.

Yes, it's unfotunate. Sadly I think they'll be dependent on us for the same reason everyone is dependent on us.

You wont let me use my proof? Fucking go on Wikipedia then.

I'm pretty sure I have the ability and the right to say whatever I want on this forum. Well, basiclly anything.

And America is a better friend? I don't think of a country who likes to install dictators everywhere a friend I would like to have. At the moment, China is probably the better friend to have. I would rather take the opinion of a person who lives in China and a person who lives in Israel over the opinion of a 13 year old in Arizona who just spews out garbage. Thank you and goodnight.

Good, besides the incorrect statement. Now let us practice using obviously reliable sources.

There is nowhere in the definition of ally that says that you will have good relations simply on the basis that you are allies. Allies are united in a common goal, not necessarily agreeing on everything. Take the Nationalists and the Communist Parties of China during World War Two. They fought together against the Japanese, but that did not creat good relations. Or parhaps a better example? The U.S.S.R. and the U.S. during World War Two. Were they allies? Do I have to tell? Did they have good post-war relations?

Which is a hypocritical and incorrect reasoning for supporting those governments. By U.S. standards.

Where is the sane world are you getting your information? China isn't ON PAR with the U.S., but between choosing a nation that will mutally benefit you and one that will actively support a dictatorship over you, who do you think is more attractive?

As opposed to the one who actively supports dictators in your country?

1. I said that I could not counter it because I do not know enough to comment, not that your proof was invalid.
2. Wikipedia?!

So you do. But I have the right to define what I mean. You don't have the right to declare what I mean. You do not speak for me.

While the US may sometimes be a royal bag of dicks, everyone also realizes that the alternative, China, is much, much worse. Which is why only tinpot dictators and... well... just tinpot dictators choose to allow Chinese "help."

Now FDI is a bit of a different issue, but even then China demands certain concessions. I remember it wasn't too long ago that they threatened DENMARK of all countries because Denmark's PM dared to have a fucking meeting with the Dalai Lama. And then they forced Denmark to never meet with the Dalai Lama again, and to give up on recognizing the validity of the Tibetan independence movement. Quite the friendly fuckers, aren't they?

Of course just strategically speaking it makes no sense for Middle Eastern countries to adopt China as an ally over the US, given China's utter and complete lack of force projection capabilities and nil presence in the region. India would make considerably more sense as an alternative (though again, not much in comparison to the US) than China.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but most people, including me, have no interest in a military partnership or alliance with China. I want the U.S. to allow Israel to maneuver more freely, deal with who we want, and pursue our own interests without them breathing down our necks. Also, it would be pretty cool if you guys didn't tell us what we can and can't buy. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Also, on a slightly more amusing note, there is a Israeli political party that wants us to move away from the US, and pursue a alliance with India. The idea of closer relations with India is a sound one, but I wouldn't be ready to count on them as strategic partner numero uno.

If Israel lost the support of the US, it would be dead in the international water. The only reason that the UN doesn't just sanction the hell out of Israel is because the US is a permanent member of the UNSC, and wouldn't stand for it. We take an unfair share of the burden in the relationship, and without a whole hell of a lot of commensurate benefit.

Obviously. Israel needs the US's continued support on the international scene, and even if we did have the unconditional support of another UNSC member, none would be preferable to the United States. I have no desire to end our relationship with the US, but rather change the terms of it, to ones slightly more favorable to us. Or at least ones that allow us to pursue trade interest without such a tight leash.

Once again, obviously. However, in my ideal Israel, we would operate without the influence of a major power, and have a radically different policy with the Palestinians, ensuring the UN was firmly behind us, seeing as a independent Israel would have a horde of enemies constantly knocking at it's gates.

Israel is of great strategic value to the US, and a powerful ally. However, there's no denying that you tend to throw yourselves in the line of fire for us. However, that does not, in my mind, make it justifiable to exert the amount of control the US does over so many aspects of our international dealings. If anything, press away for a alternative solution to the Palestinian issue, but for matters outside of that, it would be much preferable if the US kindly watched and pondered. Israel isn't going to turn away from the US on the drop of a hat, so it's safe to loosen our strings a bit, if only to tighten them when dealing with Palestine.

Why can't you guys just annex forcibly Palestine and be done with this nonsense? It's going to be shitty forever, no matter who's in charge. Or, since it's so fucking shitty, just dig a moat between you and it and fill the moat with landmines and the blood of goats. That way you can justify your daily sacrifices to your evil, goat-blood loving God in a more Realpolitik way.

As much fun as that sounds, that would require me, once again, fighting in a war, and that's not something I'm eager to do. Also, it would mean there would be all sorts of riots, and that would completely fill all the news slots, leaving no time for the heartwarming story of the 12 year old herding boy, who lost two of his goats, only to find them resting inside his shed once he returned.

Speaking of goats, goat blood is also incredibly difficult to get out of my brand new shoes, and I don't think my soon to be overdue wife would appreciate even more labor. All that in mind, a two state solution, and a eventual union sounds far more desirable, at least in my personal best interests.

I used to be so far pro-Palestine it's not even funny, however in recent events i have taken a fundamental shift to a more approach of just annex the Palestinians i mean even if they gain statehood its not going to solve anything (it would make it worse) and something must be done instead of this deadlock bullshit nogation talks.

http://samsonblinded.org/front/ (A Machiavellian view on what you good old people in Israel should do, very interesting so far but i barley got into it.)

Annexing the Palestinians is retarded and will inevitably lead to more conflict. It will serve only to further the extremist's calls for attacks against Israel, and more importantly, it's civilians. A union state (with both sides consenting to join) is the only possible method of achieving lasting peace in the region.

Do you think lasting peace is ever possible?, and yes it will lead to more conflict but there already conflict get it over with (the region around you guys hates your countries guts, its not like there ever going to have a fundamental shift of oh there cool now)

and a union state will that ever happen?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/has-the-war-with-iran-already-begun--20111204?page=1 (Interesting)

I think you are joking.
I hope you are joking.
If so, it is a VERY poor joke.

That is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE idea.
It would only ever serve to make the situation worse. To start with, annexing Palestine would only make Israel and the U.S. and all those who support/supported Israel look bad. Then there is the problem that, short of killing all the Palestinians [another terrible idea], there would likely be no peace for decades, if not centuries to come.

And what is your facination with ripping apart countries and creating DMZs?

By God, Demon is completely right. Not even references to goat sacrifice can jar it.

How about references to cow sacrifices?

Its official: It is impossible for people to joke on the internet.