www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

I score as a neo-con but think I'm closer to an isolationist.

Actually, i am all for other countries doing what they want so long as it does not affect us economically or our security militarily, unfortunately, as the world becomes more connected the lines get very blurry. I support Israel because they are strong, dont take any %!$#*& from other barbarian regimes and are God's chosen people who just have the land they were promised.

S.O.

Realist here.

Neo-con here too... think that's about where I sit.... that was a pretty good test with some questions that required some thought.... nice!

-Roth

Neo-con.

+1

The Vietnam question didn't have the correct answer.
This would have been more correct...
A: A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally sound and just, however, the liberals, commies, hippys, queers and general fucktards are the ones who fucked it away and did not allow the US Military to carpet bomb the North into piles of dirt.

Quoted: Realist here.

After I finished the test I got a knock on the door by both the FBI and Al Quida.

Sgatr15

Realist

Neoconservative
I'm a...

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower yes
Share unwavering support for Israel yes
Support American unilateral action yes
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security yes
Promote the development of an American empire no
Equate American power with the potential for world peace yes
Seek to democratize obliteratethe Arab world yes
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies yes

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

Realist here also

neo-con

Realist.

Quoted: Realist here.

+1

Neo-con
However it is worthy to note that the last time I took a test like this I was a Realist. Just goes to show that it depends on HOW you ask the question and HOW you word the answers.

Quoted: Neo-con.

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Quoted: Neoconservatives… Share unwavering support for Israel yes

Yes... this is true.... neo-cons do have unwavering support for Israel; but can anyone tell me why we support Israel??? Can anyone tell me what the U.S. gets out this relationship with Israel? Oh wait... I can answer this:

Because of our policy of showing unwaivering support for Israel, we get a Muslim world pissed off at us. And what do we get in return.... we get to send our hard earned tax dollars over to Israel to the tune of 1.2 billion plus a year in military aid in addition to billions in direct loans and grants which are never re-paid.

Why is this in our interest???? It isn't. Let Israel handle its own problems... let them deal with the damn Arabs themselves... and leave us the hell out of it. The Arabs don't hate us... they hate our policies... most of all our support of Israel. Our relationship with Israel gives us nothing in return but lost tax dollars and hostility from a group of  people who hold a strategic resource that we need (OIL) in order for the world economy... and therefore our economy.... to function. We sacrifice too much in order to support Israel.... and we get no clear benefit from it.

Please don't make any responses to this stating that I am anti-semitic... cuz I'm not. I believe that it is America's job to look out for America's interests first and foremost... and everyone else comes second.  If this is not the case... we might as well have Israel's flag flying over our capitol.

I am not a neo-con.... I am a Pat Buchanan Republican.... modern isolationist.

Ha-ha!

Realist.

I'm a realist, too.

Quoted: +1 The Vietnam question didn't have the correct answer. This would have been more correct... A: A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally sound and just, however, the liberals, commies, hippys, queers and general fucktards are the ones who fucked it away and did not allow the US Military to carpet bomb the North into piles of dirt. Quoted: Realist here.

I agree, so I left that one blank.

Said I am a NEOCON,  but I am not for American imperialism.
I just feel that if you fuck with us, you can die.
And I support spreading freedom and democracy around the globe.
Even if we have to do it alone.
TXL

Neo-Con and damn proud of it!

Quoted: Neocon, of course! Yet I was a conservative way back in the 1950s! Nothing 'neo' about my position, which hasn't changed since Ike was in the White House! And, insofar as unwavering support for Israel is concerned...I have the same unwavering support of Great Britain, as well. And Taiwan. And South Korea. Indeed, wherever Democracy is imperiled, I support it wholeheartedly! Nothing 'neo-con' about that! Eric The(Paleo-Con)Hun

+1.

And as for Israel.  With out the United States, hitlers goal would be accomplished by the 1 billion islamo facists in the region.

With the US, Israel has been kicking their ass for 50 yrs.  Reminds me of a Marine I read about today.
Againt overwhelming odds.....


TXL

Realist, then I went back and changed answer #1 from secure israel and free plaestinian state to never let israel's security be damaged and it said i was a neocon.

Quoted: Quoted: Neoconservatives… Share unwavering support for Israel yes Yes... this is true.... neo-cons do have unwavering support for Israel; but can anyone tell me why we support Israel??? Can anyone tell me what the U.S. gets out this relationship with Israel? Oh wait... I can answer this: Because of our policy of showing unwaivering support for Israel, we get a Muslim world pissed off at us. And what do we get in return.... we get to send our hard earned tax dollars over to Israel to the tune of 1.2 billion plus a year in military aid in addition to billions in direct loans and grants which are never re-paid. Why is this in our interest???? It isn't. Let Israel handle its own problems... let them deal with the damn Arabs themselves... and leave us the hell out of it. The Arabs don't hate us... they hate our policies... most of all our support of Israel. Our relationship with Israel gives us nothing in return but lost tax dollars and hostility from a group of  people who hold a strategic resource that we need (OIL) in order for the world economy... and therefore our economy.... to function. We sacrifice too much in order to support Israel.... and we get no clear benefit from it. Please don't make any responses to this stating that I am anti-semitic... cuz I'm not. I believe that it is America's job to look out for America's interests first and foremost... and everyone else comes second.  If this is not the case... we might as well have Israel's flag flying over our capitol. I am not a neo-con.... I am a Pat Buchanan Republican.... modern isolationist.

Actually, as I understand it Isreal is the United States prime resource for intelligence in the region. They have the premier intelligence agency in the world and we use that whenever we can. So I wouldn't say we get "nothing" from them. I think that's worth paying for.

Our info about Iran most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Saudi Arabia most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Hammas most definately comes through Isreal. Etc. Etc.
These are pretty good examples of intelligence worth having. The 1.2 billion you refer to is either spent helping Isreal or spent gathering information on our own. Either way, the 1.2 billion is spent in middle east intelligence one way or another.

Realist here, as well.  I might have been more of an isolationist with responses available closer to my thinking.  Sometimes my "desired" response and the available ones did not match well.  But, then again, I recognize that "Richardworld" and the real world are two different things.

Quoted: Isolationist The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets. Isolationists… Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements Believe the US should not act as a global cop Support trade practices that protect American workers Oppose liberal immigration Oppose American imperialism Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Neoconservatives… Share unwavering support for Israel yes Yes... this is true.... neo-cons do have unwavering support for Israel; but can anyone tell me why we support Israel??? Can anyone tell me what the U.S. gets out this relationship with Israel? Oh wait... I can answer this: Because of our policy of showing unwaivering support for Israel, we get a Muslim world pissed off at us. And what do we get in return.... we get to send our hard earned tax dollars over to Israel to the tune of 1.2 billion plus a year in military aid in addition to billions in direct loans and grants which are never re-paid. Why is this in our interest???? It isn't. Let Israel handle its own problems... let them deal with the damn Arabs themselves... and leave us the hell out of it. The Arabs don't hate us... they hate our policies... most of all our support of Israel. Our relationship with Israel gives us nothing in return but lost tax dollars and hostility from a group of  people who hold a strategic resource that we need (OIL) in order for the world economy... and therefore our economy.... to function. We sacrifice too much in order to support Israel.... and we get no clear benefit from it. Please don't make any responses to this stating that I am anti-semitic... cuz I'm not. I believe that it is America's job to look out for America's interests first and foremost... and everyone else comes second.  If this is not the case... we might as well have Israel's flag flying over our capitol. I am not a neo-con.... I am a Pat Buchanan Republican.... modern isolationist.hr Actually, as I understand it Isreal is the United States prime resource for intelligence in the region. They have the premier intelligence agency in the world and we use that whenever we can. So I wouldn't say we get "nothing" from them. I think that's worth paying for. Our info about Iran most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Saudi Arabia most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Hammas most definately comes through Isreal. Etc. Etc. These are pretty good examples of intelligence worth having. The 1.2 billion you refer to is either spent helping Isreal or spent gathering information on our own. Either way, the 1.2 billion is spent in middle east intelligence one way or another.

If we didn't support Israel so vehemently.... if everytime an Arab got ran over by an Israeli tank or bombed by an Apache helicopter it didn't say MADE IN THE USA on the side.... we wouldn't need as much  intelligence on the region... because there would be a sigificant reduction in the amount of people in the region wanting to kill us.

Furthermore.... in the case of Iran: Iran originally wanted to bomb because Saddam used chemical weapons, which we helped him acquire, on them in the 1980-88 war.  Now that Saddam is gone, the only thing keeping Iran wanting the bomb is to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mideast, and to deter the U.S. from trying to over throw their regime.... which we would most likely do merely to insure Israel's security.  

It is ironic... Israel believes that their nuclear weapons provide the ultimate guarantee of their national security; however, by possessing such weapons, it encourages other nations, such as Iran, to pursue the very weapons that could offset Israel's conventional military superiority.

The bottomline... if we didn't threaten Iran... and we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't need intelligence on Iran. I know some are going to come back to the democracy argument... that we need to free the Iranian people of the tyrannical Islamic regime in Tehran.... and help foster democracy across the middle east. But look at this way... establishing democracy in the middle east isn't even in America's interest. Right now... Paskistan is under a military dictatorship... and because of it... they are an ally on the war on terror. Were that dictatorship to fall... and democracy flurish... a radical islamic regime would come to power in pakistan with nuclear weapons in their hands.The same can be said of many states in the region... minus the nukes of course. Democracy in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc would bring chaos for American interests. The Democracy arguement that the NEO-CONS propagate is a joke  Secondly... why do we care about having intel on HAMAS? When is the last time a HAMAS bomber blewup anything here? Ummm... never. As for intel on Saudi Arabia.... the Saudi's asses are now on the line.... Bid Laden wants them worst of all..... they are cooperating now... at least much more than before because their royal asses are under the fire. We have embassies in Saudi Arabia... allowing us to infiltrate agents there. Obviously Israel has no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and therefore Israeli Agents cannot enter the country. Israelis would probably be beheaded for stepping on the scared soil of the Saudis. And we have much better satellite and communications intercept assets than do the Israelis..... SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT???

Neocon quiz results

Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

According to the test, I am a neo-con.  I suspect more in the model of TR and Reagan than the modern type like W.  I am an isolationist, i suspect that the questions could be worded a little better.  (surprised) Ops

Quoted: If we didn't support Israel so vehemently.... if everytime an Arab got ran over by an Israeli tank or bombed by an Apache helicopter it didn't say MADE IN THE USA on the side.... we wouldn't need as much  intelligence on the region... because there would be a sigificant reduction in the amount of people in the region wanting to kill us. Furthermore.... in the case of Iran: Iran originally wanted to bomb because Saddam used chemical weapons, which we helped him acquire, on them in the 1980-88 war.  Now that Saddam is gone, the only thing keeping Iran wanting the bomb is to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mideast, and to deter the U.S. from trying to over throw their regime.... which we would most likely do merely to insure Israel's security.   It is ironic... Israel believes that their nuclear weapons provide the ultimate guarantee of their national security; however, by possessing such weapons, it encourages other nations, such as Iran, to pursue the very weapons that could offset Israel's conventional military superiority. The bottomline... if we didn't threaten Iran... and we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't need intelligence on Iran. I know some are going to come back to the democracy argument... that we need to free the Iranian people of the tyrannical Islamic regime in Tehran.... and help foster democracy across the middle east. But look at this way... establishing democracy in the middle east isn't even in America's interest. Right now... Paskistan is under a military dictatorship... and because of it... they are an ally on the war on terror. Were that dictatorship to fall... and democracy flurish... a radical islamic regime would come to power in pakistan with nuclear weapons in their hands.The same can be said of many states in the region... minus the nukes of course. Democracy in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc would bring chaos for American interests. The Democracy arguement that the NEO-CONS propagate is a joke   Secondly... why do we care about having intel on HAMAS... when is the last time a HAMAS bomber blewup anything here. Ummm... never. As for intel on Saudi Arabia.... the Saudi's asses are now on the line.... Bid Laden wants them worst of all..... they are cooperating now... at least much more than before because their royal asses are under the fire. We have embassies in Saudi Arabia... allowing us to infiltrate agents there. Obviously Israel has no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and therefore Israeli Agents cannot enter the country. Israelis would probably be beheaded for stepping on the scared soil of the Saudis. And we have much better satellite and communications intercept assets than do the Israelis..... SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT.

I do not think you can substantiate the claim that the Arab world hates us because of our support for Israel.  They hate us for many reasons, mostly because they are fucked up.  You also claim that if we ignore what Iran does, then they will no longer be a problem?  Don't follow the logic, though it sounds like appeasement, which backfired when used to deal with Hitler.  And as for HAMAS and other terrorists, who cares who they are killing for the moment, they deserve to die.  

AND the US intelligence has just had a revolution SEPT 11 2001 because SATELLITE and COMMUNICATION assets were not adequate without HUMINT (spies), who we desperately lack.

So, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... besides hijacking the thread.

realist +1

Quoted: Quoted: If we didn't support Israel so vehemently.... if everytime an Arab got ran over by an Israeli tank or bombed by an Apache helicopter it didn't say MADE IN THE USA on the side.... we wouldn't need as much  intelligence on the region... because there would be a sigificant reduction in the amount of people in the region wanting to kill us. Furthermore.... in the case of Iran: Iran originally wanted to bomb because Saddam used chemical weapons, which we helped him acquire, on them in the 1980-88 war.  Now that Saddam is gone, the only thing keeping Iran wanting the bomb is to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mideast, and to deter the U.S. from trying to over throw their regime.... which we would most likely do merely to insure Israel's security.   It is ironic... Israel believes that their nuclear weapons provide the ultimate guarantee of their national security; however, by possessing such weapons, it encourages other nations, such as Iran, to pursue the very weapons that could offset Israel's conventional military superiority. The bottomline... if we didn't threaten Iran... and we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't need intelligence on Iran. I know some are going to come back to the democracy argument... that we need to free the Iranian people of the tyrannical Islamic regime in Tehran.... and help foster democracy across the middle east. But look at this way... establishing democracy in the middle east isn't even in America's interest. Right now... Paskistan is under a military dictatorship... and because of it... they are an ally on the war on terror. Were that dictatorship to fall... and democracy flurish... a radical islamic regime would come to power in pakistan with nuclear weapons in their hands.The same can be said of many states in the region... minus the nukes of course. Democracy in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc would bring chaos for American interests. The Democracy arguement that the NEO-CONS propagate is a joke  hy I do not think you can substantiate the claim that the Arab world hates us because of our support for Israel.  They hate us for many reasons, mostly because they are fucked up.  You also claim that if we ignore what Iran does, then they will no longer be a problem?  Don't follow the logic, though it sounds like appeasement, which backfired when used to deal with Hitler.  And as for HAMAS and other terrorists, who cares who they are killing for the moment, they deserve to die.   AND the US intelligence has just had a revolution SEPT 11 2001 because SATELLITE and COMMUNICATION assets were not adequate without HUMINT (spies), who we desperately lack. So, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... besides hijacking the thread.

"They hate us... most of all because they are fucked up": This is an intelligent assessment. Good logic yourself. hat
We are also afraid that if Iran goes nuclear that other states will follow... but that is only because Israel was the first to do so.... they deserve what they get.

And as far as your comment about a lack of human intelligence... I agree. It wasn't my point that we had the best human intelligence capability... or that  our spaced based assets made up for it... my point was that Israel is even more lacking on intelligence on Saudi Arabia than we are because they cannot enter into the country.... and we can under cover of diplomatic exchange.

Dood... get a clue and read carefully what I wrote last time.... maybe it will make sense the second time around.

Quoted:

I couldn't care less about the welfare state that is Israel. My personal solution is to remove every Israeli and Palestinian child 12 years of age and under and give the Palestinians nuclear weapons - Israel already stole the nuclear material from us and made their own in 1969. I figure by sundown of the first day the Israeli - Palestinian situation will be 'solved'.

+1

Neo- Con here

Neo-Con

Realist here.    (Or so they say...)

Realists… Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision that doesn't really fit me 100% Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa  check Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations check Believe strong alliances are important to US interests important, but not indispensable Weigh the political costs of foreign action check Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest check Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower  I can live with that Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell  I can mostly live with that

I found that more than one answer to some of the questions fit my frame of thinking, so I took the quiz twice.  The results place me somewhere between an isolationist and a realist.  

I scored as a NeoCon, but frankly I think of myself as a Reagan-era conservative.  Reagan was never shy about projecting US power, although he couldn't do it to the extent he wanted to because of the existence of the Soviet nuclear threat.  Reagan clearly thought of the US as the bastion of freedom that should try to share that gift with the rest of the world.

Quoted: Realist here.

Plus 1!

BigDozer66

Another realist here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Neoconservatives… Share unwavering support for Israel yes Yes... this is true.... neo-cons do have unwavering support for Israel; but can anyone tell me why we support Israel??? Can anyone tell me what the U.S. gets out this relationship with Israel? Oh wait... I can answer this: Because of our policy of showing unwaivering support for Israel, we get a Muslim world pissed off at us. And what do we get in return.... we get to send our hard earned tax dollars over to Israel to the tune of 1.2 billion plus a year in military aid in addition to billions in direct loans and grants which are never re-paid. Why is this in our interest???? It isn't. Let Israel handle its own problems... let them deal with the damn Arabs themselves... and leave us the hell out of it. The Arabs don't hate us... they hate our policies... most of all our support of Israel. Our relationship with Israel gives us nothing in return but lost tax dollars and hostility from a group of  people who hold a strategic resource that we need (OIL) in order for the world economy... and therefore our economy.... to function. We sacrifice too much in order to support Israel.... and we get no clear benefit from it. Please don't make any responses to this stating that I am anti-semitic... cuz I'm not. I believe that it is America's job to look out for America's interests first and foremost... and everyone else comes second.  If this is not the case... we might as well have Israel's flag flying over our capitol. I am not a neo-con.... I am a Pat Buchanan Republican.... modern isolationist. Actually, as I understand it Isreal is the United States prime resource for intelligence in the region. They have the premier intelligence agency in the world and we use that whenever we can. So I wouldn't say we get "nothing" from them. I think that's worth paying for. Our info about Iran most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Saudi Arabia most likely comes through Isreal. Our info about Hammas most definately comes through Isreal. Etc. Etc. These are pretty good examples of intelligence worth having. The 1.2 billion you refer to is either spent helping Isreal or spent gathering information on our own. Either way, the 1.2 billion is spent in middle east intelligence one way or another. If we didn't support Israel so vehemently.... if everytime an Arab got ran over by an Israeli tank or bombed by an Apache helicopter it didn't say MADE IN THE USA on the side.... we wouldn't need as much  intelligence on the region... because there would be a sigificant reduction in the amount of people in the region wanting to kill us. Furthermore.... in the case of Iran: Iran originally wanted to bomb because Saddam used chemical weapons, which we helped him acquire, on them in the 1980-88 war.  Now that Saddam is gone, the only thing keeping Iran wanting the bomb is to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mideast, and to deter the U.S. from trying to over throw their regime.... which we would most likely do merely to insure Israel's security.   It is ironic... Israel believes that their nuclear weapons provide the ultimate guarantee of their national security; however, by possessing such weapons, it encourages other nations, such as Iran, to pursue the very weapons that could offset Israel's conventional military superiority. The bottomline... if we didn't threaten Iran... and we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't need intelligence on Iran. I know some are going to come back to the democracy argument... that we need to free the Iranian people of the tyrannical Islamic regime in Tehran.... and help foster democracy across the middle east. But look at this way... establishing democracy in the middle east isn't even in America's interest. Right now... Paskistan is under a military dictatorship... and because of it... they are an ally on the war on terror. Were that dictatorship to fall... and democracy flurish... a radical islamic regime would come to power in pakistan with nuclear weapons in their hands.The same can be said of many states in the region... minus the nukes of course. Democracy in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc would bring chaos for American interests. The Democracy arguement that the NEO-CONS propagate is a joke   Secondly... why do we care about having intel on HAMAS? When is the last time a HAMAS bomber blewup anything here? Ummm... never. As for intel on Saudi Arabia.... the Saudi's asses are now on the line.... Bid Laden wants them worst of all..... they are cooperating now... at least much more than before because their royal asses are under the fire. We have embassies in Saudi Arabia... allowing us to infiltrate agents there. Obviously Israel has no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and therefore Israeli Agents cannot enter the country. Israelis would probably be beheaded for stepping on the scared soil of the Saudis. And we have much better satellite and communications intercept assets than do the Israelis..... SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT???

The muslim world would/does hate us no matter if we stood with Israel or not!

BigDozer66

Neo-con

Realist +1

Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

Realist here.

Realist
Realists…

   * Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
   * Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
   * Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
   * Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
   * Weigh the political costs of foreign action
   * Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Quoted: ["They hate us... most of all because they are fucked up": This is an intelligent assessment. Good logic yourself.

Well, I could elaborate, but... come on, no amount of justification will justify what they do, the tactics they use.  I spent a year in Iraq, and I can tell you, that culture is alien.  I can't even begin to understand the Arab/Muslim mind.  "Mostly fucked up" is not very scientific, but its true.

I didn't say if we ignored what Iran did, everything would be fine. I said if we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't care what Iran did. Iran has firendly relations with its Arab neighbors... even the United Arab Emerates ( for the most part) with which it has a territorial dispute over some islands off their coast. It doesn't engage in openly hostile activity with its neighbors. Confronting Iran serves no purpose unless we are doing it in the interests of Israel. We are also afraid that if Iran goes nuclear that other states will follow... but that is only because Israel was the first to do so.... they deserve what they get.

I think that any fundamental Muslim government is a potential threat, because it is motivated by extremist thought of world conversion; and also sympathetic to terrorists.  Iran is very unpredictable, in my opinion, and needs to be watched.

And as far as your comment about a lack of human intelligence... I agree. It wasn't my point that we had the best human intelligence capability... or that  our spaced based assets made up for it... my point was that Israel is even more lacking on intelligence on Saudi Arabia than we are because they cannot enter into the country.... and we can under cover of diplomatic exchange. Dood... get a clue and read carefully what I wrote last time.... maybe it will make sense the second time around.

I think Israel is a good ally (not always the best) because they are reasonable (i.e., they don't fly airplanes into towers), and if they can get over their current problems, would be a source of stability in the mid-East.  Meanwhile, we share common enemies with them, terrorists and extremists who don't need a good reason to kill as many innocents as possible ANYWHERE, but especially in America.  If Iran had nukes, how long would it take for one to get to terrorists?  And once terrorists get a nuke, where do you think it will be sent to?  

Dood...

If we didn't support Israel so vehemently.... if everytime an Arab got ran over by an Israeli tank or bombed by an Apache helicopter it didn't say MADE IN THE USA on the side.... we wouldn't need as much  intelligence on the region... because there would be a sigificant reduction in the amount of people in the region wanting to kill us. Furthermore.... in the case of Iran: Iran originally wanted to bomb because Saddam used chemical weapons, which we helped him acquire, on them in the 1980-88 war.  Now that Saddam is gone, the only thing keeping Iran wanting the bomb is to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the mideast, and to deter the U.S. from trying to over throw their regime.... which we would most likely do merely to insure Israel's security.   It is ironic... Israel believes that their nuclear weapons provide the ultimate guarantee of their national security; however, by possessing such weapons, it encourages other nations, such as Iran, to pursue the very weapons that could offset Israel's conventional military superiority. The bottomline... if we didn't threaten Iran... and we didn't care what happened to Israel... we wouldn't need intelligence on Iran. I know some are going to come back to the democracy argument... that we need to free the Iranian people of the tyrannical Islamic regime in Tehran.... and help foster democracy across the middle east. But look at this way... establishing democracy in the middle east isn't even in America's interest. Right now... Paskistan is under a military dictatorship... and because of it... they are an ally on the war on terror. Were that dictatorship to fall... and democracy flurish... a radical islamic regime would come to power in pakistan with nuclear weapons in their hands.The same can be said of many states in the region... minus the nukes of course. Democracy in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc would bring chaos for American interests. The Democracy arguement that the NEO-CONS propagate is a joke   Secondly... why do we care about having intel on HAMAS? When is the last time a HAMAS bomber blewup anything here? Ummm... never. As for intel on Saudi Arabia.... the Saudi's asses are now on the line.... Bid Laden wants them worst of all..... they are cooperating now... at least much more than before because their royal asses are under the fire. We have embassies in Saudi Arabia... allowing us to infiltrate agents there. Obviously Israel has no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and therefore Israeli Agents cannot enter the country. Israelis would probably be beheaded for stepping on the scared soil of the Saudis. And we have much better satellite and communications intercept assets than do the Israelis..... SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT???

This seems rather short sighted to me. Not that I totally disagree with you, but this seems to be focused soley on the "here and now" aspect of the middle east.

While I can agree that Hamas is not a direct threat to the US at the moment, I don't think it would be in our interests to simply ignore them either. They are terrorists after all. Focusing their hatred on Isreal may save surrounding countries and other regions from their anger, but let us suppose they win and Isreal is no more. What then? Do you believe they will simply disperse and sit quietly minding their own business? Possible I guess, but I'm not that optomistic. I think more likely they begin to find a new enemy, and then another, and so on. Their organization depends on having an enemy so it would be unreasonable to think they would simply go away.

Saudi Arabia: Yes, they are cooperating for now. They are entangled with the same enemy that we are, but how long will that last? Forever? I doubt it. Again, I'm not that optomistic. In regards to Isreali's infiltrating Saudi, I'm putting my money on them. It seems a little foolish to think that simply because there is no embassy then there could be no agents in country. The US has no embassy in Cuba, but I'm willing to bet there are a few agents down there.

Yes, we do have better satellite and comm intercept than the Isreali's, but these two aspects do not constitute the entire intelligence community, nor do they provide 100% of the information one might need. Not to insult you, but don't under estimate the value of having agents on the ground. Any smart enemy could easily counter Satellite imiging and Cell phone intercepts by simply doing their planning in person inside. One only needs to look at Al-Queda to see how effective this can be. Our superior Sattelites and comm intercepts have not led to Osama's capture yet have they?

With respect to the first part: To think that Iran ONLY wants nukes because everyone presumes Isreal does is foolish thinking at it's worst. First, no one knows that Isreal does or does not have nukes. Isreal purposely, and very effectively in my opinion, avoids answering this question. They can not admit to having them without exposing themselves to world outcry from pansy asses like France and Germany. Nor can they admit that they don't have them as this premise by the majority of the Arab world is what keeps them alive. Second, you mentioned their coventional superiority and I would agree with you at least in a one on one fight with any other Arab nation. The trouble is that ALL of the Arab nations hate them and I doubt very much they could withstand and counter an allied strike from all of them. The underliying truth is that Iran is seeking nukes to counter a percieved threat from the US. Which is a little ironic because this is simply the premise America will use to take the very action they want to avoid. Iran also must worry about India and Pakistan who have these weapons and are not quite as far away as America.

Even you must also admit that there is most certainly more going on than we civilians are made aware of and while basing our opinions on the information provided by the media is just about all we can do, I trust that there are people out there that know a hell of alot more than that. The US support for Isreal has gone through more presidents (Republican and Democrat) than I have lived through, so it clearly is not just a politcal toy for one side or the other. I have to conclude that there is literally some tangible reason why America would back Isreal aside from the religious groups that support it.

neo-con

Realist.

Not crazy about all the choices in some of the questions - too limited.