[quote]Sifu wrote:…
I’m not really impressed by any of them. But thread isn’t about the rest of them, it’s about Ron Paul…
[/quote]
That’s the last post I’ll ever read by Sifu.
Of course it’s about all of them. What the hell are you smoking? The thread is about whether or not Ron Paul’s candidacy is finished so if you say it is, who will be the candidate? Who would you choose instead of him and why? If none of the candidates are doing anything right then you shouldn’t single out a single one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
…Why in the world is Israel our “best and most important” ally?
[/quote]
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with one of the longest, most expensive wars in history - the Cold War.
You and the guy you copied and pasted that from really should’ve known.[/quote]
I had initially typed that up in Word and then pasted it into here. Its more comfortable for me that way. I had no idea that it would distort certain characters.
How did Israel help the U.S. in the Cold War? Did Tel Aviv have nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles pointed at the USSR? No, Israel was neither a member of NATO nor CENTO. Neither helped us in Korea, nor Vietnam. If anything, Israel cost the U.S. a number of other allies and made it easier for the Soviets (who were the first to recognize Israel as a state) to pull many Middle Eastern nations into their sphere of influence.
So please, do tell how it was that Israel helped the U.S. in the Cold War.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I can understand what he means. By taking our money Israel has to play by our rules. They could have taken out Iran’s nuclear plant long ago if it wasn’t for us and not knowing how we would react.
[/quote]
No. Israeli more needs US muscle and back up to do anything. Its WW1 style compacts between USA and Israel. Isreal is a sitting duck with her days numbered without the USA. Israel would have been done by the six days war if it werent for the USA.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:…
I’m not really impressed by any of them. But thread isn’t about the rest of them, it’s about Ron Paul…
[/quote]
That’s the last post I’ll ever read by Sifu.
Of course it’s about all of them. What the hell are you smoking? The thread is about whether or not Ron Paul’s candidacy is finished so if you say it is, who will be the candidate? Who would you choose instead of him and why? If none of the candidates are doing anything right then you shouldn’t single out a single one. [/quote]
No it’s not about all of them. Ron Paul is specifically mentioned in the tile of this thread. No one else. I’m not smoking anything. Ron Paul has been irrelevant and coming up with ideas I don’t agree with for a long time.
Throwing Israel to the wolves is not going to change how the muslims in the middle east feel about us. All it will do is lose us an important ally there and possibly encourage them to start another war with Israel that could end up going nuclear.
If you think Ron Paul could keep us safe through a nuclear war in the middle east you are an idiot. The fallout will go everywhere and eventually it will rain down on us. In addition to the fallout danger, the Israelis have more than enough nukes to start a nuclear winter.
So there is the possibility of billions dying in a global catastrophe that would destroy everyone including us if we just cut the Israelis loose and see what happens in the middle east, like Ron Paul suggests. Ron Paul is a wildly reckless gambler.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world based upon the 18th century paradigm where America was not the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth most powerful country in the world. Those days are long gone. If we withdraw from the rest of the world and let it go to whoever else is ready to step in and fill the power vacuum we leave behind, we won’t be safer.
Countries that don’t like us now probably won’t all of a sudden start liking us because we aren’t there. ie China and North Korea. Countries that do like us now and are our friends would then have a good reason to like us a whole lot less and would start sucking up to the more powerful countries that can do something for them.
For example. Israel is hedging it’s bets by making itself less reliant on the US. How is it doing this? By providing high tech military technology to China and India. ie China and India operate Russian designed Mig fighters that have Israeli avionics. If we cut off aid to the Israelis, they will have a good reason to get a lot friendlier with them and a lot less friendly with us.
Ron Paul is delusional and only appeals to idiots who are very one dimensional in their thinking. [/quote]
A fantasy world where and when despite the U.S. not being the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth most powerful country in the world, it was still able to keep the most powerful countries in the world from intervening within its sovereignty, and at the same time, still able to increase its prosperity.
Go back as far as you will, from the Revolutionary War where the most powerful Empire was ousted from our land and our freedom was won, to the Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s when despite the U.S. not having a powerful navy or international presence, the so called “most powerful” countries were called out and told to stay out of our hemisphere–to which they complied. It is not a fantasy world, it is a fact.
As for your example, Israel has been a major provider to the Chinese military since the early 1990s, with some reports indicating a connection between the two for several years before then. Despite the U.S., on several accounts, demanding that Israel cease to sell OUR weapons (we either financed them or the Israelis slightly modified them) to people we do not want to have them, they always seem to let it slide. Despite the amount of money we have given them, or military assistance, they just always seem to want to sell the slightly-modified versions of our weapons to the Chinese. It does not matter what kind of foreign policy we enact, as rational actors, every state will do what it considers is best for its own interests. So long as the Israelis make a buck, build a relationship, and get away with it, they will continue to sell to China–for even when there was no doubt that we were the sole superpower–in every sense of the word, they continued to go against our wishes and do so.
If you are going to criticize a non-interventionist foreign policy, do so within the realm of a non-interventionist foreign policy. You say that another power will come forth to fill the power vacuum we leave behind? Let it be, they can inherit our debt and the world issues that seem to only be aggravated with our involvement. Meanwhile, we will protect our own sovereignty and work solely to better our interests and elevate our prosperity.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:…
I’m not really impressed by any of them. But thread isn’t about the rest of them, it’s about Ron Paul…
[/quote]
That’s the last post I’ll ever read by Sifu.
Of course it’s about all of them. What the hell are you smoking? The thread is about whether or not Ron Paul’s candidacy is finished so if you say it is, who will be the candidate? Who would you choose instead of him and why? If none of the candidates are doing anything right then you shouldn’t single out a single one. [/quote]
No it’s not about all of them. Ron Paul is specifically mentioned in the tile of this thread. No one else. I’m not smoking anything. Ron Paul has been irrelevant and coming up with ideas I don’t agree with for a long time.
Throwing Israel to the wolves is not going to change how the muslims in the middle east feel about us. All it will do is lose us an important ally there and possibly encourage them to start another war with Israel that could end up going nuclear.
If you think Ron Paul could keep us safe through a nuclear war in the middle east you are an idiot. The fallout will go everywhere and eventually it will rain down on us. In addition to the fallout danger, the Israelis have more than enough nukes to start a nuclear winter.
So there is the possibility of billions dying in a global catastrophe that would destroy everyone including us if we just cut the Israelis loose and see what happens in the middle east, like Ron Paul suggests. Ron Paul is a wildly reckless gambler.[/quote]
What do you mean “cut the Israelis loose”? As in, no more economic or military assistance? Yes, certainly, if we stopped our aid to Israel, the first thing they would do is attack Iran. After all, cutting our aid to Israel would mean they would suddenly have the financial and military resources to sustain a full-scale war with Iran.
If instead of having their back, we walked away, certainly, such an act would embolden the Israelis to immediately launch a war against Iran. Are you kidding? If the U.S. backed away from Israel, the first thing the Israelis would do is consider compromising with their neighbors–as a matter of fact, they would be forced to do so, just as all other states are forced to compromise, collaborate, and bargain for their interests.
This isn’t a drunken bar fight, this is international relations between rational states interested above all for their own survival. If a state loses a powerful ally, in this case, its most powerful ally, it is far less likely to engage in war and far more likely to work out an agreement.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
…Why in the world is Israel our “best and most important” ally?
[/quote]
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with one of the longest, most expensive wars in history - the Cold War.
You and the guy you copied and pasted that from really should’ve known.[/quote]
I had initially typed that up in Word and then pasted it into here. Its more comfortable for me that way. I had no idea that it would distort certain characters.
How did Israel help the U.S. in the Cold War? Did Tel Aviv have nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles pointed at the USSR? No, Israel was neither a member of NATO nor CENTO. Neither helped us in Korea, nor Vietnam. If anything, Israel cost the U.S. a number of other allies and made it easier for the Soviets (who were the first to recognize Israel as a state) to pull many Middle Eastern nations into their sphere of influence.
So please, do tell how it was that Israel helped the U.S. in the Cold War. [/quote]
Dear Student,
See below for this weekend’s homework assignment. You cannot expect me to spoon-feed you all that is necessary in this course, 20th Century Israeli-USA Relations 101, here in the classroom.
If you have any questions regarding this assignment please see my teaching assistant, SexMachine. He has more patience than I and is more suited to personal one-on-one tutoring.
You will be graded on a curve upon testing. Depending on the day the test is given you might do very well around here.
Professor Push
http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/mcdougall.geographymatters.html
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=1795
[/quote]
Great links. Quotes for the students:
Geography.
“…geography and the character of the ground bear a close and ever-present relation to warfare. They have a decisive influence on the engagement, both as to its course and to its planning and exploitation.” - On War, Clausewitz
(Caesar determined to invade Britain in the late Summer of 55BC) “because he thought it would be of great service to him to ascertain the character of the people, and (to get) knowledge of the lay of the land, the harbours and the landing places” - Julius Caesar, The Commentaries(Caesar wrote in the third person in the commentaries)
“Having marched one hundred and thirteen miles…on the fifth day he reached the vicinity of the Persian Gates. Ariobarzanes had occupied and built a wall across this defile, which is now called Kal-eh-Sefid, and begins to narrow four miles east of modern Falhiyan, and held it with a force of forty thousand foot and seven hundred horse, all Persians and good reliable men. Kal-eh-Sefid means ‘white fortress,’ and is ‘a mountain of one piece of rock, inaccessible on all sides, and battlemented at the top like a castle.’ It is the key and entrance to the plateau of Iran, and all travelers agree as to the difficulty of its approach.” - Alexander, Theodore A Dodge
On ‘Grand Strategy:’
“The distinction between politics and strategy diminishes as the point of view is raised. At the summit true politics and strategy are one.” - Winston Churchill
[quote]toolhead wrote:
If instead of having their back, we walked away, certainly, such an act would embolden the Israelis to immediately launch a war against Iran. Are you kidding? If the U.S. backed away from Israel, the first thing the Israelis would do is consider compromising with their neighbors–as a matter of fact, they would be forced to do so, just as all other states are forced to compromise, collaborate, and bargain for their interests.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Because the Israelis have always been so unwilling to compromise haven’t they? And their ‘peace partners’ are falling over themselves to compromise and offer concessions. Bizarro world makes sense.
Absolutely. The Iranians and the HAMAS are as rational as one could ever hope to be. So true. Onward and upward toolhead.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
…Why in the world is Israel our “best and most important” ally?
[/quote]
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with one of the longest, most expensive wars in history - the Cold War.
You and the guy you copied and pasted that from really should’ve known.[/quote]
I had initially typed that up in Word and then pasted it into here. Its more comfortable for me that way. I had no idea that it would distort certain characters.
How did Israel help the U.S. in the Cold War? Did Tel Aviv have nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles pointed at the USSR? No, Israel was neither a member of NATO nor CENTO. Neither helped us in Korea, nor Vietnam. If anything, Israel cost the U.S. a number of other allies and made it easier for the Soviets (who were the first to recognize Israel as a state) to pull many Middle Eastern nations into their sphere of influence.
So please, do tell how it was that Israel helped the U.S. in the Cold War. [/quote]
Dear Student,
See below for this weekend’s homework assignment. You cannot expect me to spoon-feed you all that is necessary in this course, 20th Century Israeli-USA Relations 101, here in the classroom.
If you have any questions regarding this assignment please see my teaching assistant, SexMachine. He has more patience than I and is more suited to personal one-on-one tutoring.
You will be graded on a curve upon testing. Depending on the day the test is given you might do very well around here.
Professor Push
http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/mcdougall.geographymatters.html
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=1795
[/quote]
I suppose with your links on geostrategy you mean by heavily supporting Israel–militarily, financially, and through the UN, we somehow maintained a presence in the Middle East and thus in the bigger picture Israel actually helped us? Oh boy, and here I thought the Baghdad Pact with Turkey having American installed and operated nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles, at the ready and aimed at the USSR, to be used on our command actually meant something.
But no, supporting the tiny state of Israel over the rest of the Middle East totally makes sense within the lens of geostrategy. Yup, Israel is our “best and most important ally” as your TA so wisely noted. Forget Turkey, or even Britain for that matter. Lets have Thomas Stauffer add another 1.6 trillion dollars to his estimate on this lovely, mutually-benefiting alliance.
[quote]toolhead wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
…Why in the world is Israel our “best and most important” ally?
[/quote]
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with one of the longest, most expensive wars in history - the Cold War.
You and the guy you copied and pasted that from really should’ve known.[/quote]
I had initially typed that up in Word and then pasted it into here. Its more comfortable for me that way. I had no idea that it would distort certain characters.
How did Israel help the U.S. in the Cold War? Did Tel Aviv have nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles pointed at the USSR? No, Israel was neither a member of NATO nor CENTO. Neither helped us in Korea, nor Vietnam. If anything, Israel cost the U.S. a number of other allies and made it easier for the Soviets (who were the first to recognize Israel as a state) to pull many Middle Eastern nations into their sphere of influence.
So please, do tell how it was that Israel helped the U.S. in the Cold War. [/quote]
Dear Student,
See below for this weekend’s homework assignment. You cannot expect me to spoon-feed you all that is necessary in this course, 20th Century Israeli-USA Relations 101, here in the classroom.
If you have any questions regarding this assignment please see my teaching assistant, SexMachine. He has more patience than I and is more suited to personal one-on-one tutoring.
You will be graded on a curve upon testing. Depending on the day the test is given you might do very well around here.
Professor Push
http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/mcdougall.geographymatters.html
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=1795
[/quote]
I suppose with your links on geostrategy you mean by heavily supporting Israel–militarily, financially, and through the UN, we somehow maintained a presence in the Middle East and thus in the bigger picture Israel actually helped us? Oh boy, and here I thought the Baghdad Pact with Turkey having American installed and operated nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles, at the ready and aimed at the USSR, to be used on our command actually meant something.
But no, supporting the tiny state of Israel over the rest of the Middle East totally makes sense within the lens of geostrategy. Yup, Israel is our “best and most important ally” as your TA so wisely noted. Forget Turkey, or even Britain for that matter. Lets have Thomas Stauffer add another 1.6 trillion dollars to his estimate on this lovely, mutually-benefiting alliance. [/quote]
Hmm…Just taking a wild guess here but wouldn’t a comparison of countries who vote WITH the US at the UN indicate some sort shared interests on the world stage or something along those lines?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]toolhead wrote:
If instead of having their back, we walked away, certainly, such an act would embolden the Israelis to immediately launch a war against Iran. Are you kidding? If the U.S. backed away from Israel, the first thing the Israelis would do is consider compromising with their neighbors–as a matter of fact, they would be forced to do so, just as all other states are forced to compromise, collaborate, and bargain for their interests.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Because the Israelis have always been so unwilling to compromise haven’t they? And their ‘peace partners’ are falling over themselves to compromise and offer concessions. Bizarro world makes sense.
Absolutely. The Iranians and the HAMAS are as rational as one could ever hope to be. So true. Onward and upward toolhead.
[/quote]
You must be kidding right? How many times has Israel walked away from a peace agreement on any basis they could generate?
Iran is a rational actor. Even Israel, which goes around bombing its neighbors every other week is a rational actor–Israel bombs random sites in Syria in order to achieve coercive bargaining and Iran supports the Hezbollah in order to achieve leverage.
You may live in some fantasy world where Israel has a light shining down on it from God and it the symbol of all that is good–and on the other hand, Iran is all that is evil, but this is simply not true. Luckily, Israeli officials know better, many of them have warned against such a stupid action as attacking Iran–they realize that such an action would pull their country on a path it may not recover from, and this goes double if the U.S. discontinues to intervene in the Middle East.
As for Iran, you realize that Iraq was pitted against Iran, correct? That Saddam, the man we removed, swore to stop the spread of Iranian influence dead in its tracks. Do you realize that during this war, Israel actually sided with Iran? Do you realize that until today, the Saudis, especially the royal family and the Sunni extremists within that country, are largely against Iran? How about Turkey, do you realize that Turkey is now pitted against Iran since Turkey is Sunni and Iran is Shi’a? Oh yes, the Iranians have their own problems and they would CERTAINLY fare better to collaborate with Israel.
Repeat after me, intervention begets conflict. Non-intervention begets reason.
Porter: Iran offered to make peace with Israel http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html
Let me get this straight. The story about the Iranian ‘peace proposal?’ Well let’s look at the sources first[*]. This story has one. Source; “according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United States”
and
“Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.”
Hmm…let us see who ‘Trita Parsi’ is:
http://www.myspace.com/iranpoliticsclub/blog/521186303
Hang on! Trita Parsi is the head of ‘The National Iranian American Council’ which is a known Tehran-run organisation and Trita Parsi is involved in a lawsuit with an Iranian dissident who accused him of being an Iranian asset. I wonder if that link on evaluating sources might us understand this mystery?
[*] How to evaluate sources: http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/skill26.htm
“Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal that he learned about in 2003 from the US intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May that year. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, Parsi said.”
Utter batshit. Haven’t you got anything better than this?
Sources:
Author of the battshitery:
His entire career is listed under the title ‘controversies’ as, like the Chomsky, he spent the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s acting as an apologist for the Viet Cong, the Khamer Rouge and Castro. A hardcore Commie gets a secret document from an Iranian asset who can’t disclose his sources. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Testifying before Congress in May 1977, Gareth Porter said that “the notion that the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea adopted a policy of physically eliminating whole classes of people” was “a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Readers Digest book.”
A man who denied the holocaust in Cambodia when it was at its height. Why do you go in for this sort of stuff if you don’t mind my asking?
[quote]toolhead wrote:
Iran is a rational actor.
[/quote]
Ha ha. You big kidder you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Just be fair about it and cut them all off at the same time.
Quit stealing from me to fund foreign thugs.
Why is that so controversial?
Wait! Why does a government have the right to conscript people?
[/quote]
This.
It is controversial because people are afraid to let go of the 10 000 year old institution called ‘government’.
People are taught that the state is good and righteous in their early life and never really examine these beliefs.
Objectively examining this phenomenon and holding the truth as highest ideal is implicitly saying that their teachers were wrong, their parents were wrong, their community is wrong, and that you’ve been lied to all your life.
That’s a tough pill to swallow, it certainly was for me.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Just be fair about it and cut them all off at the same time.
Quit stealing from me to fund foreign thugs.
Why is that so controversial?
Wait! Why does a government have the right to conscript people?
[/quote]
This.
It is controversial because people are afraid to let go of the 10 000 year old institution called ‘government’.
People are taught that the state is good and righteous in their early life and never really examine these beliefs.
Objectively examining this phenomenon and holding the truth as highest ideal is implicitly saying that their teachers were wrong, their parents were wrong, their community is wrong, and that you’ve been lied to all your life.
That’s a tough pill to swallow, it certainly was for me.[/quote]
Most people are not willing to think for themselves. The word coward comes to mind.
They don’t view government just as good but man, they see it as almost a god. What I find so hilarious is this idiotic left-right baloney. The neocon automatons realize how corrupt the government is and does not trust this nanny state at home. Yet when it comes to foreign policy suddenly they stop thinking and believe the government is almost infallible. Their reaction is always “USA! USA! USA!” LOL!
The left does the same moronic thing only in reverse. The left sure exposed itself when they stopped protesting wars (most of them) when the a guy on their team became president. Suddenly, they stopped criticizing the government’s foreign policy. What hypocrites. BTW, kudos to those leftist who are still antiwar. You guys have at least some integrity even if you guys are totally ignorant on economics.
To Republicans and Democrats: Hey. This is NOT a football game got it? This also isn’t my dad can beat up your dad either got it?
My post may be insulting because these idiots should have figured it out by now. I mean geez, it’s so BLATANTLY obvious. What’s worse is the insult they do to themselves.
[quote]toolhead wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world based upon the 18th century paradigm where America was not the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth most powerful country in the world. Those days are long gone. If we withdraw from the rest of the world and let it go to whoever else is ready to step in and fill the power vacuum we leave behind, we won’t be safer.
Countries that don’t like us now probably won’t all of a sudden start liking us because we aren’t there. ie China and North Korea. Countries that do like us now and are our friends would then have a good reason to like us a whole lot less and would start sucking up to the more powerful countries that can do something for them.
For example. Israel is hedging it’s bets by making itself less reliant on the US. How is it doing this? By providing high tech military technology to China and India. ie China and India operate Russian designed Mig fighters that have Israeli avionics. If we cut off aid to the Israelis, they will have a good reason to get a lot friendlier with them and a lot less friendly with us.
Ron Paul is delusional and only appeals to idiots who are very one dimensional in their thinking. [/quote]
A fantasy world where and when despite the U.S. not being the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth most powerful country in the world, it was still able to keep the most powerful countries in the world from intervening within its sovereignty, and at the same time, still able to increase its prosperity.
Go back as far as you will, from the Revolutionary War where the most powerful Empire was ousted from our land and our freedom was won, to the Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s when despite the U.S. not having a powerful navy or international presence, the so called “most powerful” countries were called out and told to stay out of our hemisphere–to which they complied. It is not a fantasy world, it is a fact.
As for your example, Israel has been a major provider to the Chinese military since the early 1990s, with some reports indicating a connection between the two for several years before then. Despite the U.S., on several accounts, demanding that Israel cease to sell OUR weapons (we either financed them or the Israelis slightly modified them) to people we do not want to have them, they always seem to let it slide. Despite the amount of money we have given them, or military assistance, they just always seem to want to sell the slightly-modified versions of our weapons to the Chinese. It does not matter what kind of foreign policy we enact, as rational actors, every state will do what it considers is best for its own interests. So long as the Israelis make a buck, build a relationship, and get away with it, they will continue to sell to China–for even when there was no doubt that we were the sole superpower–in every sense of the word, they continued to go against our wishes and do so.
If you are going to criticize a non-interventionist foreign policy, do so within the realm of a non-interventionist foreign policy. You say that another power will come forth to fill the power vacuum we leave behind? Let it be, they can inherit our debt and the world issues that seem to only be aggravated with our involvement. Meanwhile, we will protect our own sovereignty and work solely to better our interests and elevate our prosperity. [/quote]
You are woefully lacking in your knowledge of history. The war of independence was very hard fought over many years with the British regularly kicking ass all over the Americans while at the same time putting a beat down on their rivals in Europe.
What it finally took to win at Yorktown on October 19th, 1781 was massive support from the French who supplied two armies and a fleet of ships to corner Cornwallis at Yorktown. The French in turn had received support from the Spanish navy so they could send their fleet to the Chesapeake. The French invested so much in the American revolution that it bankrupted France and brought on the French revolution.
Then there was the financial support received from a Jewish financier named Haym Solomon who raised money from European Jews to finance the revolution. George Washington had to call for Solomon to bring him the money he needed to send his army to Yorktown. Through the efforts of Haym Solomon the Jews were a key player in the US becoming a country. Which really flies in the face of the argument that Israel has done nothing for the US.
There is some speculation that the Jian J10 design wasn’t derived from reverse engineering a Pakistani F16, that it is actually based upon the Israeli Lavi. I don’t like the Israelis supplying technology to the Chinese, but I can understand why they do it. With American politicians like Ron Paul going around saying cut them off it makes sense for them. They are widening their base of support to the two emerging super powers China and India. The less they can rely upon us the more of that they are going to do.
The bottom line of all this is that the Israelis are good people to have on our side. But that has been well known for a long time. It says that in the bible.