I am all for cutting our aid to Israel, but let's do it for all the countries in the region too. Lebanon and Paletine have done nothing for us and don't benefit us. They certainly don't "deserve" our dollars.
The fact that you think they don't deserve it is pretty much irrelevant. The US and it's elected officials think they do.
Sure they have spied on us. Do you think that we haven't spied on them? Or the UK? You are kidding yourself if you don't. We aren't the goody two shoes of the world any more than anyone else. Yes, they have done things that have benefitted themselves at our expense but name a country that hasn't. You can't. The Uk has done things to us and we have done the same to the UK. Yet we still manage to be allies.
Sure, they have been responsible for US deaths. But do you think Israel has caused anywhere near the US deaths that Muslims that their enemies have? Not even remotely.
As far as the 4 four reasons you give for our support of Israel:
1. Ok. Pretty much true but I don't think to the degree you think.
2. Ok. I would pretty much agree.
3. No. They give us intel but we would need it no matter what. We just wouldn't have the intel without them.
4. No. They aren't testing any major weapons that we don't already have in use. That is pretty much nonsense.
Let me add:
5. They are the only stabilizing democracy in the area and help to give us an influence in the area that we would not have otherwise.
Even occupying in and of itself isn't terribly difficult, at least not when you treat the people as hostile. However, in the case of Iraq, the US is trying to be less of an 'occupier' and more of a 'helper'. In other words, we severly restrict the use of force and the tactics available to our coofftopicnders in the hopes of generating good will with the people. Now the question, "How'd that work out for you?" comes to mind, but never the less, the intent is not to subjugate the Iraqi's but to help them. Helping people by building infrastructure and forging ideological institutions is not something the Amercian military, or any military for that matter, does particularly well; however, I'd submit we do a better job of it than anyone else's military. A military is designed to kill people and break things; not make friends and build stuff. You CAN drive a nail with a 12lb sledgehammer, but is it really the best tool for the job?
Well, if you can judge a man by the company he keeps, I feel pretty confident in the 'rightness' of my take on the situation. You want to borrow my bucket to catch the drool that leaks out of his mouth?
You've just thrown out the entire advertising strategy that every branch of the UK armed forces has been using for at least the last 20 years. In fact I did once read an article where a well known international charity admitted that the British Army had arguably been the most effective charity in the world due to its humanitarian role. This other ethos in the UK military probably stems from our colonial past and the need for peacekeeping in Northern Ireland.
You can't be serious? People join the UK armed forces to be 'humanitarians'? That's what the peace corps and habitat for humanity are for. Look, I've done some really good charatible work as a military member, especially in Africa. But at the end of the day, you spend the majority of your time training with a weapon for a reason, and it's not because your society expects you to hand out chocolates to children.
The 'empire' employed cultural anthropologists to understand the 'natives'. This is why we had such a sucessful empire. The 'empire' could adapt to the colony. Compare Evans-Pritchard or Malinowski to Boaz or even the ramblings of Geertz, READ FOR YOURSELVES and you'll see what I mean. To attempt to conquer or impose with no understanding results in hatred.
The US however, remains culturally naive. A thing that constantly amazes me is the global ignorance of the US. Even the efforts of DC, who I have to admit has moments of insight and clarity, would do well to adknowledge the concept of objectivity.
For just one day, pretend you are not Americans. You may then understand why America in particular is so unsucessful in all of it's attempted colonisations.
In the UK we don't have a Peace Corps. Well, not that I know of anyway. Ever since the 1960s if you joined the Army there were two certainties as to your role:
1. You would be part of NATO against the Warsaw Pact.
2. You would do at least one tour patrolling in Northern Ireland where terrorists on both sides might try to kill you.
In the last 25 years, with the exception of the activities of the Special Forces, the Army has fought 'wars' in the Falklands, the first Gulf War, and the second Gulf War. It has kept the peace (patrolling and responding under strict rules of engagement) in Sieira Leone, Bosnia, Kosova, Afghanistan, Ireland and Iraq (sorry if I've missed any out). It maintains a permanent presence in Belize, Gibraltar, the South Atlantic, UK, Cyprus and Germany.
Whenever there is a major world event such as Katrina, Twin towers, Tsunami, the Army sends out supplies, medical staff, rescue teams and builds shelters and organises refugee camps. It is a natural extension of their job - no Army can survive without its Logistics core and Engineers. The military tend to be far more experienced in these fields and have a far greater mobility and readiness than most charities. As a result they get sent out.
I don't think that the UK Army has 'fight and win the land battle' as its core objective. I suspect it is 'get the job done' - whatever that job is. One of the army's main recruiting logos is 'be the best' - a very specific and yet very ambiguous message. The advertising campaigns reflect this, I think being a soldier and in particular being an infantryman in the UK Army, Marines, RAF Regiment means something quite different to the US.
You're a fud. Who started this situation? the isrealis, the philistines, the lebonese, syrians, palestines, tyrenees, egyptians, babylonians.
"These people" as you put it have been living in this land for years before we can even contemplate just like you have have written off 40,000 lives as being reasonable, 40,0000 mothers, 40,0000 fathers, 40,0000 brothers and sisters; I would suggest you look into your own imagination and look to yourself to see how you would feel in someones place who has a life like you in a place like Lebanon.
If I killed someone, just one of the people you loved would you see that as acceptable as the 40,000 as you quoted as reasonable in your earlier post.
I hope not mate as killing in any life is wrong, even the F*****s that are wrong, they have even a more ardious path to follow