• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which US Ally is the Most Untrustworthy?[W:184:189]

Which US Ally is the Most Untrustworthy?


  • Total voters
    75
In each of those cases, through aide we have bought a certain level of influence. Not so with Israel, who takes the aide and does as they please.

And you will note that Gardener was entirely wrong in his explanation of why he thought I chose Israel. So apparently he does not know my opinions. This is entirely predictable due to how Gardener views things in regards to Israel. He does not realize that you can oppose Israel's actions and not be anti-Semitic.

Israel is a sovereign state regardless of the 3 billion dollars in aid the US sends per year. As such the US and Israel may have disagreements. The US-Israeli relationship however is based on way more than simply this aide, it is based on the mutual geopolitical interests the two nations share, the economic relations and the ideological similarities. To claim that the US should trust Israel less than it does Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. as such is to be unrealistic and disconnected.
 
To claim that the US should trust Israel less than it does Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. as such is to be unrealistic and disconnected.

It's really pathetic how people keep playing these underhanded little games. Time after time after freaking time they single out Israel as some sort of unique source of perfidy in this world and then turn around and try to claim anybody who has noticed their bias or reacted to their hysteria is irrational. It is such a common form of projection that it has been fairly-well hardwired into the very fabric of the overall rhetoric of their hatred. Very De Rigueur.
 
It's really pathetic how people keep playing these underhanded little games. Time after time after freaking time they single out Israel as some sort of unique source of perfidy in this world and then turn around and try to claim anybody who has noticed their bias or reacted to their hysteria is irrational. It is such a common form of projection that it has been fairly-well hardwired into the very fabric of the overall rhetoric of their hatred. Very De Rigueur.

It may be an issue of hate for some, but it is difficult to argue otherwise given how Israel avoids the sanction of the U.N. and other international alliances despite its shadowy nuclear status. That is something that other nations in the Middle East (or anywhere) do not enjoy.
 
Last edited:
It may be an issue of hate for some, but it is difficult to argue otherwise given how Israel avoids the sanction of the U.N. and other international alliances despite its shadowy nuclear status. That is something that other nations in the Middle East (or anywhere) do not enjoy.

I tend to disregard appeals to popularity as well as appeals to authority because they are such fallacies, and both of which are evident in any use of the United Nations as a barometer for what is just or fair.

Since this same body passed a truly moronic sanction equating the very existence of Israel with racism, why anybody would place trust in the United Nations is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I tend to disregard appeals to popularity as well as appeals to authority because they are such fallacies, and both of which are evident in any use of the United Nations as a barometer for what is just or fair.

Since this same body passed a truly moronic sanction equating the very existence of Israel with racism, why anybody would place trust in the United Nations is beyond me.

And yet we depend on this and other "idiotic organizations" to maintain stability across the world. There's nothing to stop dozens of nations from immediately becoming nuclear powers except subjection to the regulatory commissions of the NPT, out of the recognition that, although nuclear weapons are a tempting equalizer, the chance of nuclear conflict rises exponentially the more nations obtain the capability to use them.

It also doesn't get around the fact that the world's nuclear club extends a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to Israel when every other state that does not adhere strictly to the treaty or who refuses to sign it draws ire and punishment.
 
Last edited:
And yet we depend on this and other "idiotic organizations" to maintain stability across the world. There's nothing to stop dozens of nations from immediately becoming nuclear powers except subjection to the regulatory commissions of the NPT, out of the recognition that, although nuclear weapons are a tempting equalizer, the chance of nuclear conflict rises exponentially the more nations obtain the capability to use them.

It also doesn't get around the fact that the world's nuclear club extends a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to Israel when every other state that does not adhere strictly to the treaty or who refuses to sign it draws ire and punishment.

Perhaps the notion of the tyranny of the majority is no longer being taught in schools. It was in my day, but I do have to admit we received a more comprehensive education then.

If you think it's just groovy for a bunch of Arab and Communist states to gang upon one tiny country and declare their very existence "racist", that's up to you. I happen to know better than to fall for such nonsense.
 
Perhaps the notion of the tyranny of the majority is no longer being taught in schools. It was in my day, but I do have to admit we received a more comprehensive education then.

If you think it's just groovy for a bunch of Arab and Communist states to gang upon one tiny country and declare their very existence "racist", that's up to you. I happen to know better than to fall for such nonsense.

Perhaps the notion of nuclear warfare is lost on you. Fact is the power to wipe out entire civilizations and even the Earth's protective atmosphere is easily within reach of dozens (if not hundreds) of economically and culturally competitive political organizations, and allowing exceptions to the NPT undermines and threatens the permanency of the entire concept.
 
Perhaps the notion of nuclear war is lost on you. Fact is the power to wipe out entire civilizations and even the Earth's protective atmosphere is easily within reach, and allowing exceptions to the NPT undermines and threatens the permanency of the entire concept.

How anything I have said about your fallacious reasoning gives any indication I am lost to the notion of nuclear war is beyond me. Many of my professors were so steeped in Kissinger back when I was in school that I was muttering M.A.D. doctrine in my sleep. Of course, that was in the early seventies and so much has changed since. Heck,I ever recall an argument I had with one who was particularly enamored with Kissinger where I tried to point out the flaw in such a doctrine as it predisposed rational behavior based upon the self interest of nation states, and did not take into account the varying land masses of these nation states.

If you are really concerned with nuclear war, I should do you a favor and point you in the direction of Pakistan or Iran, which is obviously not on the list. If you think Israel is the problem, you haven't been paying attention.
 
How anything I have said about your fallacious reasoning gives any indication I am lost to the notion of nuclear war is beyond me. Many of my professors were so steeped in Kissinger back when I was in school that I was muttering M.A.D. doctrine in my sleep. Of course, that was in the early seventies and so much has changed since. Heck,I ever recall an argument I had with one who was particularly enamored with Kissinger where I tried to point out the flaw in such a doctrine as it predisposed rational behavior based upon the self interest of nation states, and did not take into account the varying land masses of these nation states.

If you are really concerned with nuclear war, I should do you a favor and point you in the direction of Pakistan or Iran, which is obviously not on the list. If you think Israel is the problem, you haven't been paying attention.

My reasoning is fallacious? You are trying to push the concept that the U.N. adds up to a "tyranny of the majority" when its leading officers (the U.N. Security Council) consist of representatives from the world's most powerful hegemons.

It is a problem because maintaining a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy towards Israel undermines the concept that their primary regional rivals should conform to the treaty, or cooperate with the organizations it tasks with fulfilling the the treaty's objectives. Worse yet, it encourages the other leading hegemons (China, Russia, etc) to take a limp wristed approach when it comes to their friends flouting the treaty.
 
My reasoning is fallacious? You are trying to push the concept that the U.N. adds up to a "tyranny of the majority" when its leading officers (the U.N. Security Council) consist of representatives from the world's most powerful hegemons.

It is a problem because maintaining a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy towards Israel undermines the concept that their primary regional rivals should conform to the treaty, or cooperate with the organizations it tasks with fulfilling the the treaty's objectives. Worse yet, it encourages the other leading hegemons (China, Russia, etc) to take a limp wristed approach when it comes to their friends flouting the treaty.

Yes,your reasoning is fallacious. Luckily for you, there should be plenty of time left for you to familiarize yourself with the logical fallacies inherent in an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity. That the United Nations would single out one tiny country and declare their very existence to be "racist" is so absolutely ridiculous that any thinking person would laugh at the idea and question their judgement.

Sadly, it is increasingly difficult to find thinking people these days in an era when people place such blind trust in an organization that they view such notions as valid.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/us-disrupts-afghans-tack-on-militants.html?_r=0



This recent article reminded me of some of the countries that over the last decade we've called friends, who time and again have looked very unfriendly. Of the following countries, which do you think is the most untrustworthy US ally?

Afghanistan: Besides the latest episode, a spate of "green-on-green" attacks where Afghan troops have turned on American troops, corruption in the government, and a seemingly never-ending deployment of our troops in the country make this an uneasy alliance.

Pakistan: This country is guilty of failing to locate Bin Laden in their midst, allowing the ISI to support the Afghan insurgency and Taliban, having little control over their territory, and having an extremely un-American populace. Add nukes into the mix and this is a volatile partnership that is still struggling.

Egypt: While they have been an ally in the war on terror, the military coup and government instability, human rights violations, and aggressive attitudes in the populace towards Israel all take their toll.

Saudi Arabia: Famously, 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, the country was home to Bin Laden, and the country is where modern radical Islam was born. In addition, misogynistic laws, barbaric executions by beheading, and a self-serving royalty are all antithetical to American ideals. Seemingly, the only reason for our alliance is our dependency on Saudi oil.

Iraq: Nominally an ally (by force), the leadership of Iraq have nevertheless proven incapable of suppressing terrorism and sectarianism in their own country, destabilizing the region. They have also cozied up to Iran, including allowing Iranian flights through their airspace to provide shipments of goods to the Assad regime in Syria. Having lost thousands of lives propping up the country, there is little yet to show for it.

Israel: Elsewhere in the middle east, our closest ally in the region nonetheless has been a thorn in our side on occasions. Besides inserting us into an intractable conflict that consumes diplomatic efforts, Israel has recently exhibited a forceful nature, involving themselves in our political affairs and pushing us towards conflicts in Syria and Iran.

France: Our oldest ally, France seems to be our most visible love-hate relationship. On one hand, our alliance is responsible for our war in Vietnam. On the other hand, France was vilified for defying Bush's drive towards war in Iraq. While most of the time we share common values, the country's pride and independence can make its relationship with us unpredictable, and certain Americans just can't abide the French attitude.

South Korea: While a strong regional ally, our relationship nonetheless is predicated on stationing thousands of American troops on the front lines of a possible future nuclear war. In addition, the American presence has resulted in strong anti-American undercurrents in the populace. Is the alliance really worth it?

Other: Is it someone else?

Too many to mention. If we completely trust any of them, we're not only fools, we're damned fools.
 
Yes,your reasoning is fallacious. Luckily for you, there should be plenty of time left for you to familiarize yourself with the logical fallacies inherent in an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity. That the United Nations would single out one tiny country and declare their very existence to be "racist" is so absolutely ridiculous that any thinking person would laugh at the idea and question their judgement.

Sadly, it is increasingly difficult to find thinking people these days in an era when people place such blind trust in an organization that they view such notions as valid.

... okay tough guy.
 
This isn't even a contest. We know Pakistan provides refuge and support for al-Qaeda allies. We know that they are divided amongst competing murderous factions within the government. We know that they have nuclear missiles aimed at India and would be more than happy to use them in the event of a conflict. What has been done by any of our other allies that comes close to this shameless backstabbing?
 
In each of those cases, through aide we have bought a certain level of influence. Not so with Israel, who takes the aide and does as they please.

Doing what you want in spite of foreign aid is hardly a sign of being untrustworthy, especially when stacked up against providing sanctuary and assistance to anti-American terrorists, or exporting the ideology that empowers them.

Even with your parameters, Pakistan is still less trustworthy. They gorge on $4 billion a year of US aid while hiding and helping al-Qaeda affiliates.
 
Doing what you want in spite of foreign aid is hardly a sign of being untrustworthy, especially when stacked up against providing sanctuary and assistance to anti-American terrorists, or exporting the ideology that empowers them.

Even with your parameters, Pakistan is still less trustworthy. They gorge on $4 billion a year of US aid while hiding and helping al-Qaeda affiliates.
Saudi trains them.
 
No, it doesn't. The worst that Saudi Arabia's done is promote a fanatical interpretation of Islam within its borders, which fuels terrorist ideology.

They trained nearly all of Al Queda and have done so for years. Their financial and military support of salfist jihadism is horrible for a supposed ally of ours.
 
Isra-Hell, hands down.

An utter disgrace to the 'civilised' world and America's great shame.
 
I think our least trustworthy ally is Burkina Faso (12° 20′ 0″ N, 1° 40′ 0″ W).

I don't know how much of allies they are anyway (vicariously, by the way of Paris?), but come on, how can you ever actually trust the bosses of a country whose name means "The Country of Men of Integrity"?!
 
They have numbers and discipline. Their equipment is all post soviet from the cold war. However like the Japanese in WW2 they are brainwashed to the point where they will fight to the death...all because they we're told to. Numbers matter. For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion. Stalin's grand plan to defeat Hitler was to throw his forces at Hitler's, no retreat, no quarter, no taking of prisoners, and Stalin won the Eastern Front. The battle of Stalingrad is a classic example where soviet forces just kept sending more and more men until the Germans starved and then we're weak...and then they pulled off a pintzer movement and defeating them. So there's definitely strength in numbers.

The NK military is a joke. Most of its equipment is from the cold war era, and even ranges back to WWII.
Considering that the Chinese population is something around 14 billion, I'm slightly disinclined the believe that 1 billion figure.
 
They have numbers and discipline. Their equipment is all post soviet from the cold war. However like the Japanese in WW2 they are brainwashed to the point where they will fight to the death...all because they we're told to. Numbers matter. For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion. Stalin's grand plan to defeat Hitler was to throw his forces at Hitler's, no retreat, no quarter, no taking of prisoners, and Stalin won the Eastern Front. The battle of Stalingrad is a classic example where soviet forces just kept sending more and more men until the Germans starved and then we're weak...and then they pulled off a pintzer movement and defeating them. So there's definitely strength in numbers.

:lol: Yeah, whatever. I was gonna respond until I saw this little gem. So almost every person, children, elderly, crippled, etc are in the military in China? :lol:

with a population of over 1.35 billion.

China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and the entire world saw what our 200,000 US and UK forces did to Saddam's 375,000 Iraqi Army, 50,000 Republican Guard, 44,000 paramilitary, 650,000 reserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
 
Last edited:
The NK military is a joke. Most of its equipment is from the cold war era, and even ranges back to WWII.
Considering that the Chinese population is something around 14 billion, I'm slightly disinclined the believe that 1 billion figure.

It is a joke on both accounts... their military AND that figure. ;)
 
For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion.

lol what the ****? You're in the Air Force and you say that? WHAT
 
Back
Top Bottom