doloresbridge 
"[@igotnopicks":](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5076395#post_5076395
")
[@tehwatever":](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5076400#post_5076400
")
[@silbasa":](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5076414#post_5076414
)
Don't really have time to stick around for this discourse but I think it would be interesting to look at the Suez crisis in reference to this whole USA stopping of Israel business being suggested.
[bq]
> he response of President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration was measured. It warned the Soviets that reckless talk of nuclear conflict would only make matters worse, and cautioned Khrushchev to refrain from direct intervention in the conflict. However, Eisenhower (1890-1969) also issued stern warnings to the French, British and Israelis to give up their campaign and withdraw from Egyptian soil. Eisenhower was upset with the British, in particular, for not keeping the United States informed about their intentions. **The United States threatened all three nations with economic sanctions if they persisted in their attack.** The threats did their work. The British and French forces withdrew by December; Israel finally bowed to U.S. pressure in March 1957, relinquishing control over the canal to Egypt.[/bq]
Now, I think think we are much more in a quagmire with the middle east then we were back then and igotnopicks has a point with us having our hands tied. Personally, I wish the USA had maintained a more neutral stance with the entire world but now in order for a disengagement would just leave chaos and a power vacuum. Though being more careful wouldn't hurt anyone and perhaps we could leverage our Isreali aid to deescalate this.
Side note:"[Baltimore has now increased their police budget by 28 million":](https://archive.is/oGx8N
)
>>1965592s
"
[@Background Pony #99CC":](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5076416#post_5076416
)
I find what you say interesting, at least at a glance, and I do agree it is a problem really starting to rear its head. I would be interested in having a exchange of perspectives on the matter if you have an account that you could PM me with. We could publicly talk here too I suppose, right now though I am pretty busy with life so I consider it easier to have that set up for when I have the time to reply.
Peace to all
"
[@tehwatever
"
[@silbasa
Don't really have time to stick around for this discourse but I think it would be interesting to look at the Suez crisis in reference to this whole USA stopping of Israel business being suggested.
[bq]
> he response of President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration was measured. It warned the Soviets that reckless talk of nuclear conflict would only make matters worse, and cautioned Khrushchev to refrain from direct intervention in the conflict. However, Eisenhower (1890-1969) also issued stern warnings to the French, British and Israelis to give up their campaign and withdraw from Egyptian soil. Eisenhower was upset with the British, in particular, for not keeping the United States informed about their intentions. **The United States threatened all three nations with economic sanctions if they persisted in their attack.** The threats did their work. The British and French forces withdrew by December; Israel finally bowed to U.S. pressure in March 1957, relinquishing control over the canal to Egypt.
Now, I think think we are much more in a quagmire with the middle east then we were back then and igotnopicks has a point with us having our hands tied. Personally, I wish the USA had maintained a more neutral stance with the entire world but now in order for a disengagement would just leave chaos and a power vacuum. Though being more careful wouldn't hurt anyone and perhaps we could leverage our Isreali aid to deescalate this.
Side note:
>>1965592s
"
[@Background Pony #99CC
I find what you say interesting, at least at a glance, and I do agree it is a problem really starting to rear its head. I would be interested in having a exchange of perspectives on the matter if you have an account that you could PM me with. We could publicly talk here too I suppose, right now though I am pretty busy with life so I consider it easier to have that set up for when I have the time to reply.