End Of American Century, game over

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You seem to be very confused about the difference between needs and wants.

If Israel doesn't actually need the money, then they should not take handouts they don't actually need, assuming they have pride and/or are not just scamming the US.

Anyway, yours is no logical explanation--- just rationalization for the following contradictory comments:

1. "they could easily do without it and the Israelis would not even know the difference."

(If they can do without it, then they clearly don't need it....they want it)

2. "I did not say they did not need it"

3. "In Israel's case they need more money to buy better bombs."



Perhaps there is such inner conflict within your own mind, that you don't see the logical conflict.

Quote from dddooo:

That's plain silly, I need more money and if I get more money I will drive better a car and go to more expensive restaurants. If I don't get more money, guess what, I won't. I will still survive and I will be just fine. In Israel's case they need more money to buy better bombs to be able to destroy Hezbollah headquarters without wiping out half of Beirut with cheaper bombs. But if they don't get that money - Israel will still exist, I am not so sure about Beirut.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You seem to be very confused about the difference between needs and wants.

They don't need the aid to survive, they need the aid because they want to make their military actions as painless for enemy civilians as possible, because without the aid the Lebanese not Israeli civilians would suffer. Stop pretending you don't understand the difference.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So Israel cares about the innocent civilians, and you don't?

LOL!

You stated:

"they could easily do without it and the Israelis would not even know the difference."

So which is it? Israelis would know the difference if the "better" bombs were used and less innocent casualties resulted, or they wouldn't know the difference...

I think you are either disturbed or confused.

Since you have stated Israel doesn't need the aid to survive, they don't need the aid, they may want it, or they may not want it...but according to your quote above, they don't need it and they wouldn't even know the difference anyway...

Stop pretending you are not talking out of many different sides of your mouth...

Quote from dddooo:

They don't need the aid to survive, they need the aid because they want to make their military actions as painless for enemy civilians as possible, because without the aid the Lebanese not Israeli civilians would suffer. Stop pretending you don't understand the difference.

 

[Pathus]

If you would read correctly, you would know I was referring to military losses due to the war, not civilian.

As for this country not acting like a superpower, you are obviously wrong. Have you ever heard of the cold war? People in both countries were constantly afraid of what could happen. Americans going out and buying duck tape etc... is simply the stupid people doing what they always do, being scared when there is no need. Obviously a large attack on an American city would have people on edge since nothing like it had happened in a very long time.

Following your logic...

"I hardly think losing a few thousand Americans on 9/11 is going to make America a non-superpower."

Hmmm, this country sure acted like a non super power after 9/11, acting at times like it was being run by a 2 bit dictator with a big dump in his pants...with the people being so fearful that they went to Home Depot and bought duct tape and plastic simply because that block head Tom Ridge said so...

Do super powers need to act like it is engaged in a Chinese fire drill simply because a few thousand people and a few buildings got blown up? [/QUOTE]

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

USSR was a genuine threat to all Americans and the world in the form of nuclear war, with sufficient nukes in their arsenal to do some serious damage.

While Bush and others try to hype terrorism into WWIII, the terrorists and what they do are no where near the type of threat that the USSR posed, then, and even now potentially should a shift in their government take place which once again sees the USA as the enemy.

The USSR structure collapsed, essentially due to economic forces, not political forces per say. The economic costs of the cold war and arms race, and excursions into Afghanistan lead to their failures. I know Americans think this could never happen in America...but many powerful nations historically crumbled due to the cost of funding wars and expansion via imperialism.

I don't see an arms race now, and while the Soviets and China both have enough nukes to really damage the US, China grows stronger, the "real" enemy has been suddenly morphed into terrorism, the terrorist coming from an area that coincidentally is rich in relatively cheap oil that we need to maintain a superpower status.

Quote from Pathus:

If you would read correctly, you would know I was referring to military losses due to the war, not civilian.

As for this country not acting like a superpower, you are obviously wrong. Have you ever heard of the cold war? People in both countries were constantly afraid of what could happen. Americans going out and buying duck tape etc... is simply the stupid people doing what they always do, being scared when there is no need. Obviously a large attack on an American city would have people on edge since nothing like it had happened in a very long time.

Following your logic...

"I hardly think losing a few thousand Americans on 9/11 is going to make America a non-superpower."

Hmmm, this country sure acted like a non super power after 9/11, acting at times like it was being run by a 2 bit dictator with a big dump in his pants...with the people being so fearful that they went to Home Depot and bought duct tape and plastic simply because that block head Tom Ridge said so...

Do super powers need to act like it is engaged in a Chinese fire drill simply because a few thousand people and a few buildings got blown up?

[/QUOTE]

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So which is it? Israelis would know the difference if the "better" bombs were used and less innocent casualties resulted, or they wouldn't know the difference...

Hmm, I thought I made my opinion perfectly clear:

Quote from dddooo:

the Israelis would not even know the difference. But if the Lebanese were bombed by conventional, not precision-guided bomb half a year ago they would undoubtedly have noticed the difference.

I think you are either disturbed or confused.
I hate to break it to you but this entire forum thinks that you are disturbed, confused or worse...

Since you have stated Israel doesn't need the aid to survive, they don't need the aid, they may want it
Hmm whatever, I suppose when someone says "I need a drink" you also think that he will die without it. You need to cut this nonsense out.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from dddooo:

Hmm, I thought I made my opinion perfectly clear:

Your make your opinions known, but as demonstrated, they are not clear, they are full of double talk.


I think you are either disturbed or confused.
I hate to break it to you but this entire forum thinks that you are disturbed, confused or worse...[/b]

Oh, the entire forum?

More logical fallacy...

Since you have stated Israel doesn't need the aid to survive, they don't need the aid, they may want it
Hmm whatever, I suppose when someone says "I need a drink" you also think that he will die without it. You need to cut this nonsense out. [/B]

Yes, if someone says they need a drink, and they won't die if they don't drink, yes...it is not a real need. It is thirst, but not a need in and of itself.

If a full blown diabetic says he needs insulin to live, that is a fact.

If a man is thirsty and says I need a drink, he may feel that way, but he can live without it...

By your own comments, Israel doesn't need aid from the US, they simply want it...yet you persist in claiming they need the aid because they simply want it...because of their "thirst."

Too funny...why you resist being accurate with language is most revealing...with the typical sloppy response of "whatever" when the double speak is pointed out and illustrated.

If Israel doesn't actually need the aid, nor the implied protection of the US (Yes, we make it known constantly that we are Israel's protector) I think we should withdraw the funding and make it known to everyone that Israel believes they can stand on their own.

Then, lets see how it goes for them...

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Yes, if someone says they need a drink, and they won't die if they don't drink, yes...it is not a real need. It is thirst, but not a need in and of itself.

If a full blown diabetic says he needs insulin to live, that is a fact.

Finally you are getting it, the verb "need" has many meanings depending on the context and depending on what and by who is needed, not just an absurdly narrow definition you were using. Just because Israel does not need the US aid for survival does not mean it does not need it for other less existential purposes like saving the lives of their enemies' innocent civilians.

Do you see now how silly you sounded when you kept insisting that if someone does not need something to survive - he does not need it at all?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Need is simply not the same as want.

I think the most people learn this as children, when they say to their parents "if I don't get this toy, I will die. I need it."

Then their parents explain they don't really need it, they just want it, perhaps want it badly, but they can live without it. This the way that children learn the difference between their actual needs, and their wants.

It a broader sense, need indicates a condition that if not treated results in something more than mental frustration, i.e. a car needs new tires, or a needs a new carburetor, etc.

If you didn't get that training as a child, perhaps you can research it here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=needs+versus+wants&btnG=Google+Search

A want is not a need...this is why we have different words to explain situations and conditions, and a need is not a want, no matter how much people may use the word improperly, to express a strong want.

If you are changing your story to be more accurate with the English language, that is acceptable...it will make much more sense.

Okay, you say that Israel doesn't need the US, that US support both financial and moral is not a necessity, that Israel can go it alone, so let get on with it. Let's find out if Israel can go it alone. We can spend the money here at home, say for better education, or fix roads, etc. You scoff at 2.4 billion, but I would rather see the money where it is actually needed.

We can tell the Arab nations that we don't support Israel any more the way we once did, they are on their own, that they don't need our help or protection.

Then you can take your pride and opinions that aid and support from America is not needed and we can then all see how it goes...

People who use need frivolously, when they actually only have a want, sound like beggars...

Heaven knows, Israel would never want to sound like a dependent beggar, right?

Quote from dddooo:

Finally you are getting it, the verb "need" has many meanings depending on the context and depending on what and by who is needed, not just an absurdly narrow definition you were using. Just because Israel does not need the US aid for survival does not mean it does not need it for other less existential purposes like saving the lives of their enemies' innocent civilians.

Do you see now how silly you sounded when you kept insisting that if someone does not need something to survive - he does not need it at all?

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So we agree, that Israel doesn't need the US, and can go it alone,

We agree that Israel does not need the US financial aid to survive and can go it alone. And I don't think it was ever in dispute. This aid and political support is still extremely beneficial to Israel, the US and ironically innocent civilians of Israel's enemies.

Whether we should abandon Israel is a completely different matter. If that ever happens you with your pro-muslim pro-terrorist sentiments will be the first to cry bloody murder if Israel carpet bombs Beirut with [cheap] conventional bombs or nukes a couple of arab/persian capitals and there will be nothing we can do to stop them because we won't have any leverage on them.