0
   

Europe's Anti-American Obsession

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 07:02 am
Our support of Israel doesn't help me sleep at night. I don't endorse the idea of leaving them out to dry, but I think that Israel is buying too much political muscle here in the USA.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 08:05 am
A number of presidents (notably Carter) have come into office doubtful about the wisdom of our level of support of Israel. They pretty quickly learn from their experts that our support has a terrific payback.

Walter, didn't you once say that you taught English?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 11:01 am
Advocate wrote:

Walter, didn't you once say that you taught English?


I've taught Social Work at university, gave as an extern lessons in drug prevention and sexual education - but I'm nor I was a teacher, especially not in English. (I got a NATO qualification for interpreting English to German, but that's generations ago.)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 11:13 am
Advocate wrote:
A number of presidents (notably Carter) have come into office doubtful about the wisdom of our level of support of Israel. They pretty quickly learn from their experts that our support has a terrific payback.


Judging by his several statements on the subject during recent years, and his recent book, particularly, I seriously doubt that Jimmy Carter believes we get a positive (much less "terrific") payback for our support for Israel. Indeed, going by the standards you have applied to me, he is clearly an "Israel hater" and is "Anti Jewish" .
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 11:23 am
Walter, you admit that you were a teacher. Why did you deny it before?

George, once Carter was in office, he never sought to reduce the support of Israel.

Indeed, he has always been sympathetic to the Pals, and misguided relative to getting them to enter into a reasonable accord with Israel.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:29 pm
Advocate wrote:
Walter, you admit that you were a teacher. Why did you deny it before?



Because I'm not and have never been.

But peace and quiet, over and done with it: you won.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:30 pm
You seem a bit dim to have been a teacher.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:35 pm
Advocate wrote:
George, once Carter was in office, he never sought to reduce the support of Israel.

Indeed, he has always been sympathetic to the Pals, and misguided relative to getting them to enter into a reasonable accord with Israel.


I'm not sure I follow your meaning in your second paragraph above.

Since his term in office, Carter has been very clear in his judgement of the oppression Israel has systematically inflicted on the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Indeed he very prominently referred to it as "Apartheidt" in his recent book - a reference which I had earlier used here and to which you objected vociferously. Overall I found your choice of Carter, as a model for the esteem for Israel and appreciation of the value to us of the strategic relationship which you allege U.S. Presidents learn while in office, as rather strange and counter to your apparent purpose.

Candidates for national office get their initial encounter with the powerful Israeli lobby in this country during their campaigns. They (especially Presidents) learn even more while in office about its power and pervasive character. I seriously doubt that presidents leave office with an increased affection for Israel, or any remaining delusions about the benefits to us of our support for it basically self-destructive ambitions.

Israel has become a third rail in U.S. political life. Despite this there is a growing hostility towards Israel in political and government circles in this country - at least apart from the very vocal Evangelical support groups. At the political level we see the inevitable expressions of unqualified support for "Little Israel" (often delivered in a strange, detached way, reminiscent of the Manchurian Candidate) from the candidates, Presidents and Cabinet officials; below them are the actions of the very pro-Israel political appointees they appoint to the second echelon of key agencies; and working with them are key members of Congress; and below both, the increasingly sullen silence of the resentful bureaucrats they direct.

I once had a very peripheral role in the damage assessment investigation of Israeli espionage and technology thefts attendant to some combined U.S./Israel strategic & military programs and the people assigned to them. It gave me a look at the extent of the Israel actions and the damage they did. I also got an encounter with the long accumulating rage and hostility towards Israel resulting from all this in agencies of our government. It is real and substantial.

I believe that public support of Israel in this country is slowly eroding - even among American Jews. This, in turn, makes AIPAC's job harder, and erodes, the government political cover that has so far contained this rage and hostility with such effect. One day the critical point will be reached and the dam will burst. That day is approaching.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 12:35 pm
Advocate wrote:
You seem a bit dim to have been a teacher.


Right. Thus, I only got engaged at university.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 01:51 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
George, once Carter was in office, he never sought to reduce the support of Israel.

Indeed, he has always been sympathetic to the Pals, and misguided relative to getting them to enter into a reasonable accord with Israel.


I'm not sure I follow your meaning in your second paragraph above.

Since his term in office, Carter has been very clear in his judgement of the oppression Israel has systematically inflicted on the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Indeed he very prominently referred to it as "Apartheidt" in his recent book - a reference which I had earlier used here and to which you objected vociferously. Overall I found your choice of Carter, as a model for the esteem for Israel and appreciation of the value to us of the strategic relationship which you allege U.S. Presidents learn while in office, as rather strange and counter to your apparent purpose.

Candidates for national office get their initial encounter with the powerful Israeli lobby in this country during their campaigns. They (especially Presidents) learn even more while in office about its power and pervasive character. I seriously doubt that presidents leave office with an increased affection for Israel, or any remaining delusions about the benefits to us of our support for it basically self-destructive ambitions.

Israel has become a third rail in U.S. political life. Despite this there is a growing hostility towards Israel in political and government circles in this country - at least apart from the very vocal Evangelical support groups. At the political level we see the inevitable expressions of unqualified support for "Little Israel" (often delivered in a strange, detached way, reminiscent of the Manchurian Candidate) from the candidates, Presidents and Cabinet officials; below them are the actions of the very pro-Israel political appointees they appoint to the second echelon of key agencies; and working with them are key members of Congress; and below both, the increasingly sullen silence of the resentful bureaucrats they direct.

I once had a very peripheral role in the damage assessment investigation of Israeli espionage and technology thefts attendant to some combined U.S./Israel strategic & military programs and the people assigned to them. It gave me a look at the extent of the Israel actions and the damage they did. I also got an encounter with the long accumulating rage and hostility towards Israel resulting from all this in agencies of our government. It is real and substantial.

I believe that public support of Israel in this country is slowly eroding - even among American Jews. This, in turn, makes AIPAC's job harder, and erodes, the government political cover that has so far contained this rage and hostility with such effect. One day the critical point will be reached and the dam will burst. That day is approaching.



I thought it interesting that even pro-Pal Carter realized that our support of Israel was justified. That is why I brought up Carter. BTW, almost everyone who is cognizable of the ME situation thinks that Carter is a bit nuts relative to his speeches and writings on the ME.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 05:21 am
America: #1 in Bibles. #37 in Infant Mortality link
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 04:34 pm
Advocate wrote-

Quote:
You seem a bit dim to have been a teacher.


Do you not know after all these years of what the biologists call maturation, getting knackered colloquially, that teachers are the uttermost, outer-limits of dimness. A dimness so dim that it doesn't have the slightest idea of its dimness despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 03:56 pm
He is so dim that he doesn't know that he was a teacher.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 10:20 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Ramafuchs wrote:
Since I am a globalist I wish to die in Germany
Very Happy Any particular region? Where is the best place in Germany to die?

dunno... my buddy rainer claims that mainz = death.

Mainz isnt so bad... bit boring, for sure, but pleasant enough. Wiesbaden across the river is better tho Smile
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 11:29 pm
DTOM was right. I spent two years up the hill from Mainz. It was a pause on the way to Wiesbaden.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2008 03:05 pm
When was that, Roger?
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2008 05:14 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
America: #1 in Bibles. #37 in Infant Mortality link


The difference in infant mortality is a statistical artifact, though.

Basically, the US classifies any infant death that occurs after 20 weeks as an infant mortality event; most nations draw the line at 22 weeks. Something like 50% of US infant mortality is infants born in week 20; thus, by European standards they wouldn't even be considered "births" and thus wouldn't be reported in the infant mortality rate.

So by US standards, most of the countries that are higher on the list grossly under-report their infant mortality. By their standards, the US only has half the reported infant mortality rate.

But looking at the difference won't help you snark, so people don't...
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 01:33 am
I'd say you are making up an artifact.

Everybody knows that the infantile mortality rate is high in the US:

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 11:16 am
Your link doesn't address the statistical issue. Here's a thread addressing the statistics.

It's perfectly fair to say that minorities in the US have higher incidences of low infant birth weight and attendant higher infant mortality, for example. But the overall infant mortality rate is -absolutely- affected by the line where you separate "live birth" from "miscarriage", and the US quite simply counts some births of premature babies as "births" where countries following the WHO recommended standard would account for those as "miscarriages". It's also the case that those babies have a relatively low survival rate, so their inclusion is going to distort the overall infant mortality rate disproportionately.

That's not to say that European nations don't try to do a good job on infant mortality or extremely premature babies or anything. Let me be clear that I'm not trying to insult the good results of their health care systems. But the US also has good results, if you account for the fact that their higher mortality rate includes quite a few babies who would not receive treatment at all in, say, the UK. The higher failure rate is at least partially reflective of the fact that the US just tries to save more babies, and counts it as a failure when they can't manage to do so.

Have you a response? For example, does the UK count infants under 22 weeks in its infant mortality statistics?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2008 11:32 am
Since I'm not from the UK, I can't give an ad hoc answer.

But I only want to add that Europe is a bit more than the UK.
Quote:

Something like 50% of US infant mortality is infants born in week 20; thus, by European standards they wouldn't even be considered "births" and thus wouldn't be reported in the infant mortality rate.


Most countries call the mortality between the 28th week and the seventh day after birth perinatal death/mortality. And those numbers are of course included in the numbers of infant mortality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 02:57:00