America - The Official Thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I feel like most of those strategic interests only exist because they are in the immediate interest of Israel...which is kind of circular reasoning for why does the US so staunchly support Israel.

In any case, those are strategic reasons, yes, but don't go so far to explain public support of Israel. Also, I'm not sure facilitating arms sales to Iran is really something most conservatives would be onboard with.

 

[DDastardly00]

I feel like most of those strategic interests only exist because they are in the immediate interest of Israel...which is kind of circular reasoning for why does the US so staunchly support Israel.

In any case, those are strategic reasons, yes, but don't go so far to explain public support of Israel. Also, I'm not sure facilitating arms sales to Iran is really something most conservatives would be onboard with.

I'm sure they don't really care what Conservatives think, and by 'they' I mean the major US arms dealers that export to 98 other countries. It's probably best to view this not through a political lens but rather a financial one since it's really all about money not politics.

The global arms trade is worth 369 Billion annually, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, England, Germany, Russia China and the US being the top exporters:

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3

It would be interesting to find out how much is farmed through Israel.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm sure they don't really care what Conservatives think, and by 'they' I mean the major US arms dealers that export to 98 other countries. It's probably best to view this not through a political lens but rather a financial one since it's really all about money not politics.

The global arms trade is worth 369 Billion annually, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, England, Germany, Russia China and the US being the top exporters:

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3

It would be interesting to find out how much is farmed through Israel.

Yeah...but the whole point of the discussion was about why/what conservatives think, wasn't it?

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't expect it to make you feel better! You really need to delve into the comments associated with the article to see the various, complex & sometimes opposing permutations of biblical "truth" presented.

I think, when it comes to Israel it's an "all of the above" scenario. However, I feel Trump doesn't really care about any of it personally, especially "scriptural prophecy", - he just has chosen to identify with a block of the electorate - evangelicals - who have "end-times" ideas about Palestine/Israel. This also ties in with a significant block of American voters who are reflexively drawn towards xenophobia, islamophobia & militarism. In comparison, sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians resonates with a tiny percentage of the American electorate.

I'm including that as "catering to scriptural prophecy". Even if he doesn't believe it himself, if that's the motivation because the electorate believes it, it's still vomitworthy.

While I don't have a solid answer to your questions, I do believe our support for Israel is for Strategic, not political reasons. Support for Israel has been bipartisan since the end of WWII for mostly security reasons. I will offer this from the Institute for Policy studies:

Strategic Reasons for Continuing U.S. Support
There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond.

• Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine.

I think that's probably a good thing. But I'm not sure that we want to actually have our hand in that. Whatever good it does seems undermined by our involvement.

Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in check.

That doesn't seem to be going well.

• Israel’s air force is predominant throughout the region.

Of course it is, it comes from us.

• Israel’s frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms, often against Soviet weapons.

This seems overrated. Especially given that we've generally moved on by the time we're giving stuff to Israel.

• It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara.

Seems undemocratic.

• Israel’s intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence gathering and covert operations.

I'd think that shared intelligence would be its own bargain... no additional assistance needed. We know stuff, they know stuff, we talk. Done.

• Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.

Source: https://ips-dc.org/why_the_us_supports_israel/

We also have nuclear missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union. Anti-missile defense testing is an interesting one. It does seem like an advantage, not sure how much it's worth or whether this is the cleanest way to get it though.

 

[Exorcet]

This seems overrated. Especially given that we've generally moved on by the time we're giving stuff to Israel.

If you mean on a technological basis, Israeli equipment is actually pretty comparable to that of the US. In the cases where it's not they will generally replace downgraded export technology with their own. Israel battle tested the US's 4th generation aircraft well ahead of the US military and it did this against the types of threats those planes were designed to fight, both in the air and on the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

It's similar to the anti missile testing point. Both in terms of practicality and morality.

 

[Danoff]

If you mean on a technological basis, Israeli equipment is actually pretty comparable to that of the US. In the cases where it's not they will generally replace downgraded export technology with their own. Israel battle tested the US's 4th generation aircraft well ahead of the US military and it did this against the types of threats those planes were designed to fight, both in the air and on the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

It's similar to the anti missile testing point. Both in terms of practicality and morality.

Well that makes it even worse... since we're at that point exporting our bleeding edge of military technology to a country that may or may not remain friendly with the US. I'd call that a net loss.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well that makes it even worse... since we're at that point exporting our bleeding edge of military technology to a country that may or may not remain friendly with the US. I'd call that a net loss.

I'd call that par for the course. Or as Jon Stewart used to say, "learning curves are for p*****"

 

[Danoff]

I'd call that par for the course. Or as Jon Stewart used to say, "learning curves are for p*****"

@Exorcet

I'm not entirely sure how one goes about establishing that whatever arms we give to other countries is actually representative of our current state of development without a top secret clearance. For one, you'd have to actually know what we had, and for two, you'd have to know for sure what we gave. It seems like a difficult thing to substantiate outside of a classified environment. In some cases (for example aircraft), it may be easier to identify that what they have now does not represent our current state of the art. But for most cases, including aircraft avionics, that seems nearly impossible.

Edit:

Or in the case of the F-35, apparently they just have what we use currently. Which is not something I was aware of (started 2 years ago), and is pretty annoying.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Exorcet

I'm not entirely sure how one goes about establishing that whatever arms we give to other countries is actually representative of our current state of development without a top secret clearance. For one, you'd have to actually know what we had, and for two, you'd have to know for sure what we gave. It seems like a difficult thing to substantiate outside of a classified environment. In some cases (for example aircraft), it may be easier to identify that what they have now does not represent our current state of the art. But for most cases, including aircraft avionics, that seems nearly impossible.

I suppose we didn't necessarily give "bleeding edge" weapons to the Shah, Bin Laden, or Saddam, but we sure had to fight against them not long afterwards. It's just so, so dumb.

 

[DDastardly00]

Yeah...but the whole point of the discussion was about why/what conservatives think, wasn't it?

I assume you mean public support, not conservative support at the govt level, because support for Israel has been bipartisan since the 50's at the govt level (with little to no-change).

I don't have a solid answer for public support for Israel because there really isn't enough good data on that, but historically Israel has had bipartisan support amongst the American public. Most of these poll questions are framed around questions like: who do you support in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I wouldn't pretend to know how much international affairs matter to the general US public in regards to Israel or Palestine but if I had to venture a guess I would say very little. Most Americans seem more concerned with domestic issues as they directly affect their everyday lives, far more than issues in the middle east.

 

[Exorcet]

@Exorcet

I'm not entirely sure how one goes about establishing that whatever arms we give to other countries is actually representative of our current state of development without a top secret clearance. For one, you'd have to actually know what we had, and for two, you'd have to know for sure what we gave. It seems like a difficult thing to substantiate outside of a classified environment. In some cases (for example aircraft), it may be easier to identify that what they have now does not represent our current state of the art. But for most cases, including aircraft avionics, that seems nearly impossible.

Edit:

Or in the case of the F-35, apparently they just have what we use currently. Which is not something I was aware of (started 2 years ago), and is pretty annoying.

There is an element of secrecy involved which can obscure the real picture, yes. I'm only going off publicly released information. Officially Israel operates US equipment with no real handicaps that I'm aware of. Amusingly their F-15's were air to ground capable before the US's but that was probably out of necessity on their part. There have been attempts/considerations to purposefully limit the capabilities of allied militaries when exporting (F-5, F-16 79 [this one did not go through, exported F-16's don't have de-rated engines], the F-22 sales ban which is related to the F-35 since it's intentially a lower performance fighter than the F-22 while retaining stealth and advanced avionics), so it's definitely something the government/military has thought about. Even so it hasn't prevented some very advanced capabilities from leaving the US's hands. The most notable case is Iran which is the only operator of the F-14 and its long range missiles outside of the US.

 

[Biggles]

. Most Americans seem more concerned with domestic issues as they directly affect their everyday lives, far more than issues in the middle east.

This is undoubtedly true & reasonable enough ... if US administrations weren't constantly actively involved in manipulating events in the Middle East (& elsewhere in the world). The ignorance of the American public in general about events in the rest of the world is not that unlike the public in most other nations in the world, the difference being the US has enormous influence of what happens globally. Sure, there is strong support for Israel in the US, but that's to a large extent because the Israeli point of view receives far more coverage in the US media than that of the Palestinians.

 

[DDastardly00]

This is undoubtedly true & reasonable enough ... if US administrations weren't constantly actively involved in manipulating events in the Middle East (& elsewhere in the world). The ignorance of the American public in general about events in the rest of the world is not that unlike the public in most other nations in the world, the difference being the US has enormous influence of what happens globally. Sure, there is strong support for Israel in the US, but that's to a large extent because the Israeli point of view receives far more coverage in the US media than that of the Palestinians.

Which shows media bias is alive and well and not just in the US either. You could say the inverse is true in a country like Iran with it's various Govt controlled news services, it's a guarantee that Palestine receives far more favorable coverage in Iran than Israel does, and you can probably rubber-stamp that statement for most other countries throughout the middle east.

Israel is a sworn enemy of many in the middle east who think they don't have a right to exist, even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust didn't happen. If there was ever a reason for the American general public's support, it is likely for reasons like these.

 

[Danoff]

There is an element of secrecy involved which can obscure the real picture, yes. I'm only going off publicly released information. Officially Israel operates US equipment with no real handicaps that I'm aware of. Amusingly their F-15's were air to ground capable before the US's but that was probably out of necessity on their part. There have been attempts/considerations to purposefully limit the capabilities of allied militaries when exporting (F-5, F-16 79 [this one did not go through, exported F-16's don't have de-rated engines], the F-22 sales ban which is related to the F-35 since it's intentially a lower performance fighter than the F-22 while retaining stealth and advanced avionics), so it's definitely something the government/military has thought about. Even so it hasn't prevented some very advanced capabilities from leaving the US's hands. The most notable case is Iran which is the only operator of the F-14 and its long range missiles outside of the US.

Looking at the countries that currently have F-35s I have to wonder if we really do know what the hell we're doing. When it comes to the US government my default answer is "no" we do not know what the hell we're doing.

 

[Exorcet]

Looking at the countries that currently have F-35s I have to wonder if we really do know what the hell we're doing. When it comes to the US government my default answer is "no" we do not know what the hell we're doing.

In theory the F-35 is a "sanitized" export plane intended from the beginning to be shared. We'd have a force of F-22's to give us the edge if F-35 deployment turned out to backfire on us. Or at least we would if we weren't in a continuous cycle of mismanaging programs. F-22 numbers were cut because we could just rely on the F-35 instead. However because of F-35 delays were instead upgrading the F-15's that the F-22 was supposed to replace until we build up the F-35 force that we need because we didn't buy enough F-22's. So I agree about not knowing what we're doing before we even get to exporting technology.

On the F-35 specifically though it's not clear to me exactly how much risk we're taking on. Other nations could develop F-35-like aircraft. Most likely France and Europe (France is its own entity when it comes to military) and they have their own desires to export technology, as can be seen with the Rafale and EF-2000. Monopolizing the market at least lets us know exactly what other nations have capability wise. If we took this into account when developing our own military strategy it might not be too hard to ensure that we would keep the technological lead. Going back to above though, we clearly don't know how to stick to a plan. The F-35 is also pretty cutting edge to boot.

On a side note we actually lost 1 F-35 (and sadly the pilot with it) already through Japan, and the first thing on people's minds was stopping China and Russia from taking it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/7116...hter-jet-found-pilot-still-missing-after-cras

 

[Danoff]

In theory the F-35 is a "sanitized" export plane intended from the beginning to be shared. We'd have a force of F-22's to give us the edge if F-35 deployment turned out to backfire on us. Or at least we would if we weren't in a continuous cycle of mismanaging programs. F-22 numbers were cut because we could just rely on the F-35 instead. However because of F-35 delays were instead upgrading the F-15's that the F-22 was supposed to replace until we build up the F-35 force that we need because we didn't buy enough F-22's. So I agree about not knowing what we're doing before we even get to exporting technology.

On the F-35 specifically though it's not clear to me exactly how much risk we're taking on. Other nations could develop F-35-like aircraft. Most likely France and Europe (France is its own entity when it comes to military) and they have their own desires to export technology, as can be seen with the Rafale and EF-2000. Monopolizing the market at least lets us know exactly what other nations have capability wise. If we took this into account when developing our own military strategy it might not be too hard to ensure that we would keep the technological lead. Going back to above though, we clearly don't know how to stick to a plan. The F-35 is also pretty cutting edge to boot.

On a side note we actually lost 1 F-35 (and sadly the pilot with it) already through Japan, and the first thing on people's minds was stopping China and Russia from taking it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/7116...hter-jet-found-pilot-still-missing-after-cras

That was one of the first things to cross my mind. If you don't want certain countries having access to the F-35, you should only put it in the hands of countries that you know can keep it secure. Not just the plane itself, but all documentation that they have of the plane.

I understand that the F-22 may have some advantages in certain aspects over the F-35, but we still use the F-35 ourselves. It's still our top level aircraft for certain applications, so it's concerning to me that we've distributed it.

I can see a little bit of the angle you're hinting at. The US wants to develop a new plane. If we sell it to other countries we can recoup the cost, we might even be able to nerf it a little (like in avionics or somesuch) before it goes out the door. Since the US is developing it, other countries will not have their own development capability. The US will be able to import experts from all over the world and retain essentially all development knowledge of cutting-edge aircraft while the rest of the world relies on us. Then if we keep the highest level goods to ourselves, we have a guaranteed edge, while making the rest of the world (or our preferred partners at least) subsidize our development. Sounds pretty great.

Of course if you flip it you would say that every other country is copying our homework without having to put the real money in and do the work themselves. They get a cutting-edge military for a fraction of the cost and let the US taxpayer foot the bill. By the time they actually need that development in house the technology will have moved so far along that all of that R&D that we were so proud of is now useless junk, and needs to be reinvented anyway. Also by the time everything we developed had been leaked all over the internet anyway. So all we really did was spend gobs of money developing stuff and then handed it to the rest of the world for cheap, and bought ourselves a very small, very expensive edge for a short period of time. Sounds pretty terrible.

 

[Exorcet]

Of course if you flip it you would say that every other country is copying our homework without having to put the real money in and do the work themselves. They get a cutting-edge military for a fraction of the cost and let the US taxpayer foot the bill. By the time they actually need that development in house the technology will have moved so far along that all of that R&D that we were so proud of is now useless junk, and needs to be reinvented anyway. Also by the time everything we developed had been leaked all over the internet anyway. So all we really did was spend gobs of money developing stuff and then handed it to the rest of the world for cheap, and bought ourselves a very small, very expensive edge for a short period of time. Sounds pretty terrible.

Yes, and there's a lot of speculation that this happened with the F-35 already with China having gained some amount of insight into its technology through hacking.

I also agree that trying to control the arms market with something as high end as the F-35 can come across as counter productive. I don't know enough to say whether it will be a good idea in the end, but I can put together a chain of logic that might be behind the decision.

 

[ryzno]

I'll just leave this here...

 

[DDastardly00]

Oh wow, didn't pay attention to the Mueller coverage at all today, mostly because I'm just tired of it. That horse has been beaten to death so long ago, it's now a skeleton. Rep Jordan brings up a very valid point there, why didn't they charge Joseph Misfud for lying to the FBI when they charged Cohen, Flynn, Page and so many others for the exact same thing, it just doesn't add up. Anyway I had a feeling this would go absolutely terrible for Mueller today, there was a reason why he lawyered up, all the while Barr is investigating the origins. McCabe, Rosenstein, and Comey better be lawyering up too.

 

[TexRex]

I refer you to this article in the National Review (& the associated comments) for further clarification/confoundment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-real-reasons-american-evangelicals-support-israel/

Wasn't me. I swear.

 

[Biggles]

Oh wow, didn't pay attention to the Mueller coverage at all today, mostly because I'm just tired of it. That horse has been beaten to death so long ago, it's now a skeleton. Rep Jordan brings up a very valid point there, why didn't they charge Joseph Misfud for lying to the FBI when they charged Cohen, Flynn, Page and so many others for the exact same thing, it just doesn't add up. Anyway I had a feeling this would go absolutely terrible for Mueller today, there was a reason why he lawyered up, all the while Barr is investigating the origins. McCabe, Rosenstein, and Comey better be lawyering up too.

This supposes that for some unknown reason McCabe, Rosenstein & Comey (let's not forget Clapper) & Mueller - all lifetime public servants working with a variety of previous administrations - have an entrenched partisan bias so strong that they would willfully abandon any semblance of institutional integrity to pursue a personal political vendetta against Trump. It also supposes that their conduct rises to the level of CRIMINAL behaviour. This is absurd.

Selecting one Sean Hannity approved excerpt from the hearing doesn't show anything other than one side of the painfully partisan nature of the issue. I watched a good deal of the hearing this morning. It was appalling. Mueller was so uncommunicative, both from the Democratic & Republican perspectives, that at times he seemed to be suffering from dementia. Trump is a horrible, corrupt swamp creature who has surrounded himself with horrible swamp creatures, but Nancy Pelosi has it right - the Democrats need to focus on the issues, focus on winning the GE & forget the impeachment diversion.

 

[ryzno]

Selecting one Sean Hannity approved excerpt from the hearing doesn't show anything other than one side of the painfully partisan nature of the issue.

I had the privilege of listening to the whole thing live...

 

[DDastardly00]

This supposes that for some unknown reason McCabe, Rosenstein & Comey (let's not forget Clapper) & Mueller - all lifetime public servants working with a variety of previous administrations - have an entrenched partisan bias so strong that they would willfully abandon any semblance of institutional integrity to pursue a personal political vendetta against Trump. It also supposes that their conduct rises to the level of CRIMINAL behaviour. This is absurd.

Selecting one Sean Hannity approved excerpt from the hearing doesn't show anything other than one side of the painfully partisan nature of the issue. I watched a good deal of the hearing this morning. It was appalling. Mueller was so uncommunicative, both from the Democratic & Republican perspectives, that at times he seemed to be suffering from dementia. Trump is a horrible, corrupt swamp creature who has surrounded himself with horrible swamp creatures, but Nancy Pelosi has it right - the Democrats need to focus on the issues, focus on winning the GE & forget the impeachment diversion.

You first mistake is believing anyone in DC has integrity Your second mistake is assuming it's personal. The rest doesn't seem so absurd after that.

Pelosi is doing the best she can with what she has, but party unity will be an issue going forward. The GE is looming and time is running out. They really need to get behind Biden at this point because he is the best shot they have. If I were Biden, I would be distancing myself from the rest of the field of candidates and more importantly issues they espouse all while pitching myself as a centrist alternative. They need to win back the middle and so far they are doing a crappy job of it. It may already be too late.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Biden should be doing everything he can to secure a progressive front-runner (or at least a progressive with some degree of visibility) as a running mate. I don't see Warren joining, nor Harris (though those two would arguably be the most effective in the GE).

Biden-Gabbard could be a super strong ticket (I wonder if her recent strong criticism of Harris is indicative of this possibility?)
Biden-Buttiegieg could also be strong

He needs a young, charismatic VP to bring both the millennial and gen-z left (which could be the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020, as the boomers fade away) out to the polls. Pete and Gabbard could deliver, IMO.

 

[mustafur]

Biden isn't going to win your having a laugh if you think he will stand a chance, he can't debate and will get eaten alive by the time the Primary's come around.

Buttiegieg is a bought corporate hack same with Harris, no thanks.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

If I were Biden, I would be distancing myself from the rest of the field of candidates and more importantly issues they espouse all while pitching myself as a centrist alternative.

Biden needs to learn how to play the saxophone.

But seriously, as a Trump supporter, Biden is the only one that scares me. But they all raised their hands when asked about free healthcare for illegal aliens. That's not very popular at all. I am sure Trump will pound whoever the nominee is with that.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'll just leave this here...

The republicans deliberately kept asking and speeking about the origins of the report, all the while they fully knew it is an ongoing investigation and Mueller was instructed by the DOJ to keep to the contents of the report.

I had the privilege of listening to the whole thing live...

Then you should now the opinion that Trump's crimes were serious enough to prosecute when he leaves office or if he wasnt president. Dont you worry about his efforts to obstruct the investigation?

 

[DDastardly00]

Biden needs to learn how to play the saxophone.

But seriously, as a Trump supporter, Biden is the only one that scares me. But they all raised their hands when asked about free healthcare for illegal aliens. That's not very popular at all. I am sure Trump will pound whoever the nominee is with that.

Michael Moore just said that while he likes Biden, the only one who can beat Trump is Sanders. Now, it would be easy to cast this out to the junk pile, but Michael Moore was actually right about Trump winning in 2016, and he was saying it before everyone else was. I'm not sure I agree with that but he might be right.

 

[McLaren]

Biden just needs to name drop Obama when possible and how they were a duo on certain issues. Would it be true? Kinda by technical terms.... But no Dem is going drag the former President into a negative light if Biden words his statements right.

 

[ryzno]

Biden just needs to name drop Obama when possible and how they were a duo on certain issues. Would it be true? Kinda by technical terms.... But no Dem is going drag the former President into a negative light if Biden words his statements right.

Harris already brought up his bussing vote last debate. They might not bring up Obama but the gloves are already off. And bringing up Obama might not help him, not all of us that voted for him are happy with the results of his two terms.