All individuals who are citizens of Israel live in a democratic state.
The other allies have more to offer us than non-existent “intelligence” which you claim is the benefit of associating with Israel.
False.
In Logic 1A, you will learn that “All jihadists are Islamic” doesn’t equate to “All Islamics are jihadists” however you define that.
All Isalmicists are Jihadists. This is by definition. Not all Muslims are Jihadists but some are and many potentially are.
The “Open Door Notes” refer only to one country, China. America didn’t become a world power because it had free trade with China.
False. The immediate effect of the Open Door Policy as the implementation of the Open Door Notes concerned U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Philippines and Cuba.
“Open-Door Policy” is a universally-accepted synonym for free immigration. You equivocate on the definition of “Open Door Policy.”
It has a specific historical meaning in the context and as a corollary policy to the Open Door Notes. You are speaking ahistorically now. This was a foreign policy debate which occurred around 1898-1901 concerning the course of American foreign policy and pitting guys like William Jennings Bryan and Grover Cleveland (so-called "anti-imperialists") against the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. If you deal with this ahistorically you will have missed this seminal American foreign policy decision.
Markets “protected by force” are tyranny, not “free trade.”
Markets must be protected by force from time to time. That's why I said as of necessity.
Those other 114 countries, along with their inhabitants.
Circular discusion.
Realpolitik says to dump Israel. But that’s a little too harsh, so the next-best thing is to either make them conform to Western norms in every respect, or declare them a rogue state and take appropriate political, economic and ***other*** actions as necessary.
It's the other way around as this Administration is correctly asserting. The Pals and Arab Islamics must stop the violence, terrorism, Jihad and Intifada. Act civilized instead of like a bunch of medieval Jihadists. When the Arabs can conform themselves to social norms then there will be peace.
All Communist Party nomenklatura had greater privileges than the average Westerner. That doesn’t mean communism was a better system for those who weren’t.
False.
We import almost nothing, and we subsidize what we export with our own funds. A net loss on both sides of the ledger. The only “military cooperation” that happens is against its own enemies, not ours. Add the “intangibles,” the worldwide negative reaction against our single-minded obsession with that one country, and you have a huge minus.
Not all Muslims are Jihadists but some are and many potentially are
They “some” and “potentially” have increased exponentially since 1948. Before then, jihad was a concept from history books and a suicide bomber, unthinkable except perhaps the story of Sampson.
False. The immediate effect of the Open Door Policy as the implementation of the Open Door Notes concerned U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Philippines and Cuba
False yourself. As early as 1868, “Open Door Policy” referred to free immigration, and particularly free Chinese immigration. In 1899, it referred to free trade with China. In neither case was there any explicit backing up of free immigration or free trade with “force if necessary.”
OPEN-DOOR POLICY FOR CHINESE IMMIGRATION – 1868
1880 President Benjamin Hayes signs the Chinese Exclusion Treaty, which reverses the open-door policy set in 1868 and places strict limits both on the number of Chinese immigrants allowed to enter the United States and on the number allowed to become naturalized citizens.It has a specific historical meaning in the context and as a corollary policy to the Open Door Notes…If you deal with this ahistorically you will have missed this seminal American foreign policy decision
”Earth to Lent - You are speaking ahistorically now”
I repeat, “Open Door Policy” began as a term in the 1860's for immigration, especially Chinese immigration, and ended up as a term for Chinese trade, and neither instance was “protected by force if necessary.”
Markets must be protected by force from time to time.
What the hell are you advocating? So jihadists are wrong to try to impose their religion, but industrialized and well-armed countries can impose their markets? Rubbish.