Hah.
You lose.
You’re lying.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of debating in bad faith.
So Nietzsche, you were saying…
Again Sevastopol, you are lying through your teeth.
Do you really expect to get away with lying when all I have to do is quote the posts?
You didn’t prove it then, you can’t prove it now.
And I’ve caught you lying.
And all this while you’re accusing me of debating in bad faith.
Haven’t you been humiliated enough?
For the moment re-open the other thread if there are answers there you aren’t satisfied with. You made no such objection at the relevant time.
I agree that the general thrust of that essay wasn’t “they had it coming.” He buried that within a lot of other arguments, some valid while others questionable. But I think you’ll agree that the statement I quoted from the essay does intimate the message “this is what you get for what you’ve done in the past.” No matter how much trimming he puts around that shit sandwich, it’s still a shit sandwich he was offering the Americans.
Would it have been too hard for him to reply with a simple “bummer days dudes!” instead of putting forth valid arguments at a very inopportune time?
Absolutely! Folks who were familiar with the PNAC “mission statement” and knew that some members of the PNAC now held high level positions in the U.S. Administration were making very accurate predictions. The world was treated to the cowboy antics of the new U.S. Administration during its showdown with China over something as benign as their spy plane being clipped while in Chinese airspace. This was a good indicator of the war-like nature of the new U.S. Administration. If a person had a somewhat thorough knowledge of the Middle East, its political situation, as well as familiarity with the new U.S. Administration, they knew (or at least give a fairly accurate guess) by 1500 GMT on 11/9/2001 what was about to come.
I’d name folks I knew personally who gave disturbingly accurate guesses shortly thereafter, but I would not be able to furnish cites.
Now you’re just making me do my homework.
I’ll have to re-read his statement. Bear in mind that it is a translated document and that Saddam has a difficult writing style. So there are issue of interpretation involved.
This suggests to me that even if the sentiment is there, it isn’t expressed with sufficient clarity to chop into soundbites. That may explain why this speech wasn’t in the propaganda mix. So regrettably I’m having to disagree with your sentiment that Saddam said anything that had the effect of inflaming US sentiment.
I think it is more likely the extant hostility allowed the administration to foster the impression that Saddam had supported the attacks, after the event.
On the other hand I completely accept the other point that there were other people who from day 1 knew the US’s course of action, PNAC people. Astonished, I would not have guessed, but accepting.
Re: Homework. Let the TV story go. I’ve found nothing other than the one source on the 'net, although the story is syndicated here and there. My inclination is that had it been true we’d know all about it. Instead it lives at the the periphery of myth, like the assasinate Bush I myth.
I’m afraid my research hasn’t yielded too much more.
But I did research the articles I saved and was able to find a similar one online.
It was Agence France Press that quoted Saddam as saying:
If you didn’t like the Guardian link, you’re going to like this one less.
Newsmax
Believe me, I would not use that as a source. But it is referencing AFP which I do trust. Now you’ll pardon me while I go take a shower for visiting that site.
I did come across this other site which warrants a retraction from me regarding Kim Jung-Il. Apparently even he had the good sense to express sympathy.
Oh, on the contrary. While some would agree that his comments may have merit, they were more than enough to enrage the American public. There was no more of an inopportune time to start spouting off like that than when he did. And the timing, and not necessarily the comments themselves, were what enraged Americans. As a statesman, you have to know what to say and when to say it. Even the Taliban seemed to understand statesmanship better than this guy.
Undoubtedly. I’m just saying his response added to the hostility from the American public.
You may very well be right. There was (and is) plenty of disinformation flying around. But for me, the absence of even so much as a hint of sympathy gives some credibility to the possibility of the state TV story.
Haven’t yet been humiliated by proving someone wrong.
Don’t think I’ll start now.
Kind of you to ask though.
I had heard, bandied about on the Dope, that if you didn’t painstakingly refute every point someone threw your way, they would someday later come back and claim they had someone won, or their facts were accurate. I didn’t think it was true, what a ridiculous strategy I thought, how empty of, as you are fond of implying, good faith. Evidently, I was wrong.
No, lo and behold, I did not approach the Dope like a job, I had other things going on in my life, and I didn’t always have the time to refute each and every falsehood you put forward. That doesn’t mean your unchallenged falshoods somehow become true. Nor does it mean that in a Great Debate you can claim to be impervious to requests for a cite. Bad faith, indeed.
Nor have you proven anything, now, or then. Your entire ‘unasailable’ and ‘proven’ point, beyond those I already dealt however many with lies on one single paragraph.
Now, the quote was not “In support of the state of Israel, they decided to attack Bagdad.”
It was a nebulous quote about ‘the road to Jerusalem’. This could very well have meant that by toppling Sadaam, (eg Bagdad), a domino effect would spread throughout the region fostering western values. (This was, aparantly, some of the justification behind the war.) Regardless, this is not proof that ‘zionist concerns’ prompted the attack.
And if you are going to contine making that claim in GD, it behoves you to actually defend it. Not accuse someone who challenges you on your falsehoods of whatever thinly veiled ad hominems you feel you can get away with slinging.
Sevastopol, could you please expand on your response to Nietzsche. Your statement implies that you know the real reasons why Iraq was invaded. Could you please share your insight with us?
Wake Up Call, the answer is obvious. According to Sevasopol, the Jews tricked us into attacking Iraq.
Nietzsche those sources are good enough for me.
Wake up Call, flattery will get you anywhere. I must confess my own insight is a small part of my understanding.
May I assume you don’t entertain illusions of the CIA beating down the Whitehouse Door, arousing the somnolent President to the view that Iraq is right at this very minute, the paramount threat to US security?
Good? Then we may proceed as adults.
The best answer to your question is to refer you to my own sources of information. Current views are a mosaic assembled from these. One of course, is this message board. For example Nietzsche above refers to the PNAC crowd. You should look into that. There is also another MB from which my internet personae sprung into being. The sources I recommend:
PNAC - try google & Wikipedia
NeoCons - as above
[http://www.juancole.com/](Juan Cole)
[http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/](Baghdad Burning)
& opinion pieces from
- Washington Post
- NY Times
- Guardian
Sadly the question has been asked rather late, so you’ll really have to search around those sites and may not find all the persuasive or relevant articles. Still best to make up your own mind from reputable sources.
Lemur866 there may be one tiny fallacy in your argument. Exactly where it lies eludes me at this very moment. Hopefully finer minds that I will emerge to tease out the relevant nuance.
Moderator kind sir or madam, if you might tweak the coding on the links?
Also, I found this very persuasive:
You’ve used tactics like this before, and they weren’t valid then, either.
This is their mission statement, by the way.
But, that doesn’t matter, because guilt by association is not proof.
There may be many PNAC members in government (I’ve not yet seen a cite proving that either). There are definitely many Christians in government.
It is no more valid, without proof, to say that “the PNAC’s zionist considerations influenced the war” than “Christian theology influenced the war.” Likewise, of course, with Neocons.
Moreoever, membership in a group =/= rote adherance to all of their tenets, much less the enactment of public policy based on those tenets.
You have to provide proof, not suppositions. This ‘mosaic’ is simply the result of taking many bits of non-proof and trying to call them proof.
Do you have a better bit of ‘proof’ that a nebulous and cryptic statement that the ‘road to jerusalem led through bagdad?’ Moreoever, even if the goal of the administration was to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, wouldn’t the ‘concern’ behind that be peace and stability, not Zionism?
Moreoever, as the paragraph right after that makes clear, the issue was the spread of democracy and western values, not the protection of Israel.
As a side note, if there are other arguments at this website, I am unaware of them. And my requests for cites from you have garnered nothing but derision and a link to an old thread which I had stopped reading before you mentioned this website in it, anyway.
Big blog. Want to cite the specific portions which you claim support your position? Or is a mere suggestion to be equated with proof these days?
You mean to suggest that opinion pieces constitute proof, in any way, shape, or form, what-so-ever?
Were your claim true, it would not be hard to provide hard evidence. Where is it?
P.S. This is the complete text of the remarks by General Zinni
How many times is the word “Israel” used? Zero.
How many times is the word “Zionist” used? Zero.
What does he say?
So even “The Zionists” weren’t threatened by him, so Israeli security wasn’t at issue.
In other words, your claim is still 100 percent unproven.
On preview, I see that you’ve also refrenced the full text of the article. What, exactly, does it prove for you? Where, how? What text, exactly, proves that the war was in any way due to ‘zionist concerns’.
P.S. I would also note that the Juan Cole column you refrence in the previous thread (the one that’s on May 24th) is ** out of context and omits entire paragraphs**. Funny, that Juan Cole neglected to include the paragraphs right after the one about the ‘road to Jerusalem’. Ya know, the paragraphs giving context to it and elaborating/explaining what it meant.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to address the fact that your position isn’t supported. Please, insult my debating style some more. That’ll prove your position.
FinnAgain:
I know you weren’t speaking to me directly, but…
Just to clarify my own position a little, I wasn’t insinuating that it was due to “Zionist considerations” that tricked the U.S. into the Iraq war. The fact that some members of the PNAC are Zionists (whether Jewish or Christian) I think is tangential to the matter. But the PNAC’s decade long infatuation with wanting to settle things with Saddam Hussein is not in question.
A quick search turned up these two articles…
GlobalPolicy.org
George W. Bush’s desire for regime change prior to gaining presidency
My point with the “PNAC crowd” statement was to clarify to Sevastopol how some of the folks I knew, who guessed rather accurately what was about to come, came about their assessments.
Well, perhaps not always, but it’s hard to think it’s not in this particular case.
It is this exact ideology (by way of Pax-Americana, spreading of “democracy,” western economic models, etc.) that I was referring to. How much a war to bring these ideologies to the Middle East benefits Israel could be argued on both sides. But I wasn’t suggesting that those with Israeli interests tricked the U.S. into going to war with Iraq.
Well, no. What you’re focused on is the Zionists and how they’re responsible for the Iraqi war in yet another step towards world domination.
In the OP I was specifically looking for debate on why Iraq over Iran. (Thanks to those offering valid opinions and facts, they gave me a lot to chew on.)
Thanks for completely hijacking this into some conspiracy you hold true. I’ll bow out and just shun this thread.
The only problem with that observation duffer is that it is complete bollocks.
Oddly enough, the paragraph you quote is a perfect example of Nietzsche and I keeping it on theme.
You really ought to have evidence before throwing charges around you know. You never know what it can lead to if you don’t.
What the hell are you talking about? I know what the OP said. I WROTE IT! It wasn’t supposed to devolve into what Saddam Insane said or thought. Want to debate that? There’s a button on the main thread page that says “start new thread”. You wasted half a page when you can debate your Zionist feelings elsewhere.
Again, thanks for getting this so far off topic it’s pretty much your thread now anyway. Have fun with it.
What Saddam said was directly relevant to the question of targetting Iraq. That’s why we were discussing it.
I made heroic efforts to fight off attempts to hijack this thread into discussions of Zionism and frankly I’m getting a little tired of accusations without evidence. So sneak off it you must or apologise otherwise.
Sevastopol, the hero. A man who is tired of accusations without proof.
Had you actually been willing to discuss the reasons why there were ‘zionist concerns’ with Iraq and not Iran, it might very well have been on point with the OP. Seems that would have not been a hijack, at all. Instead you herocially avoided discussing, or proving, why Zionist concerns might have chosen Iraq over Iran.
Nietzsche: I will respond more to you later, I know you weren’t suggesting the this is part of some Zionist conspiracy. Besides, anybody who took his user name from the guy who wrote Thus spoke Zarathustra and Twilight of idols can’t be all bad 
And, Duffer I am sorry for any harm I did to your thread. I know you invited me in to give my opinion, and I’m sorry if in the process I messed it up. You have my sincere apology. I hope we can get this thread back on track and you will feel like you can participate. Again, my apologies.
And here is my take on why US went to Iraq, rather than invading Iran:
1- After the loss of Iran/Shah in 1978, the US has been seeking a permanent platform in the Middle East.
2- Iran has now too much baggage to carry since 1953 US intervention, support of puppet Shah and his US-trained SAVAK. The Iranians would not accept another Brit or US-maintained puppet.
3- Saudi Arabia is not going to work because of the eruption/uprising of Wahabis/Osama against the House of Saud.
4- Jordan/Syria have no oil. The Emirates are too small to be taken seriously. What is left except Iraq?
5- Forget “Exit Strategy” in Iraq. The plan, from the beginning was to establish “a permanent foothold, forever” in the Middle East until the oil runs out. US will be in Iraq for the next 40/50 years, just as they have kept the puppet house of Saud for the past 30 years. US has no intention of leaving Iraq – Ever – until Iraq runs out of oil. We moved there, to be there forever. Those who are asking for “US Exit Strategy” have no idea about the ‘Plan”.
The OP asks why not invade Iran rather than Iraq.
The answer is simply that the Return on Investment (ROI) was higher in invading Iraq than invading Iran.