No answers to my questions? Check?
Additional irrelevancies? Check.
Further refuge in pseudo-victimhood? Check.
When come back, bring facts.
It could happen. 
Jesus Christ, spoke-.
Can we stipulate that Israel doesn’t like Syria? That Israel doesn’t like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? That Israel doesn’t like Iran? And vice-versa?
That’s not exactly a fucking secret now is it?
Now it turns out, shockingly that the US doesn’t like Syria. The US doesn’t like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That the US doesn’t like Iran. And vice-versa.
So the fuck what? Absent the sinister cabal of Jews who conflate the interests of the US with the interests of Israel, would we have good relations with Syria?
When did we have good relations with Syria? Assad Sr. and Bush Sr. famously posed for a photo-op during Gulf War I, when Syria wanted to get onboard the He-man Saddam-Haters club. When did we have good relatins with Iran? When the Shah ruled Iran. When did we have good relations with Iraq? Before the Baathists took power. Did we want regime change in Iraq? That’s been the case since Gulf War I, and before. Do we want regime change in Iran? Hell yes. Do we want regime change in Syria? Hell yes.
So when you point out that Israel has enemies in the middle east, and the Bush administration has invaded one and rattled the sabers at two others, well, we’re supposed to draw what conclusion? That we’d be buddies with Syria if only the Jews didn’t hate Syria? That we’d be buddies with the Ayatollahs if only the Jews weren’t whispering slanders into the ear of the president?
Obviously you don’t believe such silly things. So for the life of me, I can’t understand why you think it is so damning that the US shares enemies with Israel.
And what exactly is so sinister about recommending that Israel should try to appeal to the American people? You call it “manipulation of the American public”. Nice.
Lemur866, I thought I made this clear early on: my concern is that Israel’s friends in the US government would guide us into consecutive wars against Israel’s chief enemies: Iraq, Iran and Syria. That would certainly serve Israel’s interests. I do not believe it would serve US interests. While it might make Israel more secure, I believe it would only serve to inflame the Muslim world against the US.
Sure, the US doesn’t like the regimes in those countries, but disliking a regime and going to war to remove it are entirely different things.
So Israel will tricked us into going to war with Iraq, against our interests? Is that your contention?
And Israel will attempt to trick us into going to war with Syria and Iran?
You honestly believe this?
Do you think using one’s position of power to steer policy decisions in a direction that favors one’s own interests is synonymous with trickery? I don’t. The same kind of objections were raised about Halliburton and Cheney. See also Bush and the Saudis.
Even most people who don’t believe these relationships are worrisome conflicts of interest wouldn’t view notions of such with the same level of incredulousness that you suggest is warranted in this discussion. Why should speculation about Israel and guys like Perle be deemed off-limits? There doesn’t seem to be any rational basis for this.
Right now the US is embroiled in a big mess in the Middle East, with Iraq front and center. Years later and we still don’t really know the real reason for this fool war. Out comes documents that suggest that the Iraqi invasion was years in the making, and we’re supposed to believe that contrary to whatever these documents suggest, a pro-Israel agenda has nothing at all to do with our policy-decisions and any speculation that even hints in that direction is either a sign of anti-Semitism or tin-hat trollery?
This is getting ridiculous. It’s actually scary, because this is the kind of shit that we can’t afford to be trusting and naive about.
Of course the invasion of Iraq was years in the making!
There has been a steady albeit fluctuating drumbeat for invasion of Iraq ever since Gulf War I when Bush Sr. called off the march to Baghdad.
We’ve had a policy of regime change ever since. We’ve had a low-level warfare with Saddam ever since. We regularly bombed Iraq every time Saddam looked at us crossways.
It is not a revelation to find that some people have been pushing for the invasion of Iraq since 1990. The position papers from PNAC weren’t secret documents, they were public documents intended to influence policy. And when Bush got elected and brought a lot of PNAC people into his administration they were hawks against Iraq. And after 9/11 the American people were pretty easily sold on the idea of kicking some Arab butt, nevermind why.
So what exactly is the Israel connection here?
The connection is that a lot of Iraq hawks were also pro-Israel. Some were even…Jewish. Shocking! How could a loyal American want to kick Saddam’s ass? Only an Israeli double agent could want such a thing!
I think you’re misreading concern about the quality of the blog-speculation and toying with conspiracy theory that’s been seen in this thread.
Our Mideast policy (including that relating to Israel and the Palestinians) can and should be reevaluated. “Speculation that…hints” and conspiracy theories are an example of the sort of ignorance this board is dedicated to fighting. Insinuations that those who oppose Administration policies or formulate them are unpatriotic or have hidden agendas, in the absence of a factual basis, are unacceptable.
If one’s arguments are sufficiently logical and backed by clear evidence, they should be convincing. If they are not, it’s time to look at the quality of those arguments or even whether they might be wrong entirely, rather than desperately resorting to scapegoats.
And the question of the day, month, and year is why? Why did we have to go into Baghdad and why did this happen when we should have been concentrating our attention in places like Afghanistan. That question remains unanswered, after cutting away all the White House bullshit about freedom and evildoer terrorists.
The reason why Israel keeps appearing on the radar is not because people are anti-Semitic, IMO; it’s because it’s just one of several plausible but unproven reasons why our government was motivated to invade Iraq. Another one of these much talked about reasons is oil. There are no smoking guns that point to oil, either, but that doesn’t stop folks from treating it like a viable theory. It’s the same way with Israel. It’s hypocritical to call someone a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist who is an unthinking pawn in the global movement to besmirch Jews everywhere just because they call attention to certain patterns. That’s a rather tin-foil hat accusation in itself.
Who is this war supposed to ultimately benefit, really? The government says the US, but it doesn’t really seem like that is the case. Iraq was not a war-worthy problem for us. Can you really fault people for thinking that Israel may play a role because 1) they are our only ally that could stand to benefit from a strong American military presence in that area, 2)they have a significant lobbying influence, and 3) strong supporters of Israel sit in positions of power that have direct bearing on defense policy? You’re essentially asking people not to connect dots like they would if any other issue was being speculated upon. I don’t think that’s fair.
I understand this. The same applies to any theory being touted as the “real” reason for the war. What I find objectionable is the knee-jerkitude that I see whenever the Israel question is raised. As you say, if someone puts forth a theory they should be prepared to back it factually, rationally, and dispassionately. Likewise, if you find a problem with anyone’s theories, it best to address them on rational, factual, dispassionate grounds.
It would be…if anyone had done so in this thread.
- There are numerous other allies in the region that benefit from a strong American military presence in the region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE for instance. 2) Other interests in the region lobby heavily in the U.S., as has been discussed here recently. The fact that lobbying on behalf of Israel has been relatively successful has stimulated some people to attack the idea of an “Israel Lobby” as something inimical in itself, rather than focus on countering its message. 3) Israel has drawn strong popular and governmental support in the U.S. over many decades. It’s not something new. The challenge is to recognize what policies may be damaging to both nations in the long run, and single out the individuals promoting those policies for their wrongheaded ideas, and not for their ethnicity.
Fair or not, connect-the-dots arguments suffer from a fatal weakness. I enjoyed Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911”, but recognized its failure to go beyond connect-the-dots in many instances. It could have been a lot more effective, but Moore’s unwillingness to do his homework helped ensure that it was not taken seriously in many quarters.
I didn’t mention “dispassionately”, probably because it’s next to impossible to have any debate that bears on the Middle East in an emotionless context. I’d settle for a consistent application of rational and factual discourse. A smidgen of balance and historical awareness would be nice too.
Nope. As I’ve said before, in this thread and others, it seems to me that rather than a “conspiracy” as such, there is a convergence of special interests (one of which is Israel) which combined to create a momentum that led to war.
Different persons in power may have had different reasons for wanting to see the US at war in the Middle East. Look at who benefits. Oil companies benefit. Halliburton benefits. The defense industry benefits. Saudi Arabia benefits. Defense hawk politicians benefit. And yes, Israel benefits. All of those special interests have persons representing them in or very close to the Bush administration. Does this mean they got together in a back room somewhere and potted to take the US to war, laughing all the while at how they were duping the American people? No.
Maybe they naively believed that they really could “transform” the Middle East. Maybe they really thought that democracy would bloom. But if they thought that, they were deluded. And maybe they were able to delude themselves more easily than should have been the case becuase it wasn’t only US interests they had in mind. Maybe in the backs of their minds they were thinking “Hmm. I can see how Halliburton/Israel/Exxon/Lockheed could really benefit from this policy direction.”
In other words, maybe their evaluations of American interests were clouded by the other interests policymakers had in mind. Maybe that is why they didn’t forsee the total clusterfuck that Iraq has become.
I should add that what is very clear by now is that we did NOT go to war because of WMDs. The Bush administration was eager to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
So if WMDs weren’t the true reason, what was the reason?
Behold:
Not quite, but close (you’re short one global movement). I’ll give you credit for aBehold.
Apart from the usual bewildered souls who feel better if they can explain away their problems as being due to the Cabal, there are people who parrot bigoted stereotypes unthinkingly, or are willing to overlook their implications in the name of some cause (Palestinian rights, bringing down the Bush Administration etc.) Those who latch on to events in the Mideast for the purpose of spreading hate are likely in the minority.
Funny how it all comes out sounding the same.
I am surprised you want to dispute the content of the Wiki page, seeing as you profess not to understand its relevance. If both, you don’t understand, but wish to dispute anyway then you are not the person my posts are addressed to. It the open mind that I address.
No doubt you noted that I posted the quote as a starting point, from the mass of information to show concern for Israel as a precipitating factor in the Iraq invasion. I recommend you read the entire page. In addition, the two links from the page are similarly informative. Here again:
I don’t wish to repeat the content of the Wiki article. Instead, a summary for your benefit: * Douglas Feith was one of the principal mendicants in the Iraq/WMD scam and: he did it, for Israel.* Clear?
Now you may wish to argue that the Office of Special Plans had nothing to do with claims about WMD, or that Douglas Feith had nothing to do with it? Perhaps you wish to put forward instead that the evidence of Feith’s biography and first hand witnesses of his conduct compels us to conclude Israel was at all times the furthest thing from his mind during his days of policy influence? Maybe the suggestion that Israels’ security was something he has considered on ocassion is outrageous? Feel free to say so, if that’s your feeling.
Well put.
A fine sentiment too. On the other hand, even reading mostly me would become dull after a while.
Ha! Shows how much you know. The wave of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel hatred was two waves back. And there isn’t another one due for seven further waves, weather permitting. No, the current wave has something to do with food.
I pretty much agree with Jackmannii. The question, as phrased, is irrelevant. There is no question of “how many questions”, but rather the way they are asked, and the facts with which they are backed.
For example, Alfred Dreyfus was a single man. In his case, a single treason charge was enough to cross the line into Anti-Semitism. In contrast, Larry Franklin’s case resulted in immense embarrassment (at least in Israel), and not a single serious accusation of Anti-Semitism.
So, to paraphrase others, ask as many questions as you wish, as long as you back them with facts and present them rationally (rather than “I suspect”).
This seems rather reasonable to me. I would also add another major “special interest” - that of the American People. Do you honestly believe no one had America’s best interests at heart?
But let me ask you this: In this thread’s OP, and elsewhere, it seems that out of all the special interests you quoted (Oil companies, Halliburton, the defense industry, Saudi Arabia, Defense hawk politicians and Israel,) and some you probably forgot, it is Israel that is being singled out. Why is that? I’d appreciate your opinion.
It may be quite clear that Iraq had no WMD (I do not know one way or another, though I suspect it is so). But how is it clear that that was not the cause of the war? I really ask, as I’m sure there is a lot on this subject with which I’m unfamiliar.
Sevstopol, I do not have the time now, so I will answer you later. Let me just point that indeed, rather than going through the wiki page (some of the stuff there is rather silly), I pointed that it does not support your claim, hence I don’t think it’s relevant.
More later.
Jackmannii, I understand the concerns raised in your last post, but I have a different take on things.
I don’t think we can afford to have sacred cows in politics, particularly in matters as grave as war. We must be free to scrutinize the activities of all special interests, and that includes being able to voice suspicions about the activities of those special interests even when evidence is only circumstantial.
There is no doubt that Israel has taken an active role in American politics, to the point of organized lobbying. Indeed, there is no doubt that Israel has gone so far as to engage in espionage in the US to protect its interests. Given Israel’s location and its many enemies, Israel has every motive to go to extreme lengths to protect itself. Just how far would Israel go? We must be wary.
And if, in being wary about Israel’s influence, we conjure up unpleasant ghosts for our Jewish friends, I regret it. But we must still be free to engage in such inquiries without fear of censure.
What was it Harry Truman used to say about politics? Something about heat and kitchens?
Nope. As I said in my last post, I think some of the players may have genuinely believed they could make democracy bloom in the Middle East and thus make the world a better place for everybody. But I think they let their other interests (Israel/oil/Halliburton/defense contracts/politics) cloud their judgment about this. The best interests of the American citizenry should be the ONLY concern of American policymakers, and particularly so in matters of war.
That was obvious to me from the beginning. In the early stages, the Bush administration talked about “regime change” (using those words) for several days before they ever mentioned WMD. It looked to me like they were fishing around for a way to sell regime change to the American people, and later latched onto WMD as a way to do that. We know now that the CIA was being pressured to come up with evidence of WMDs and that they were cherry-picking and coloring their intelligence to do so. (Yellow cake, anyone?)
So I thought it was obvious from the start that they had other policy reasons for wanting regime change, reasons they weren’t telling us. Now, I also thought at the time that they might have had valid policy reasons with good cause to keep them hidden. For example, one reason for wanting regime change might have been to alllow us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and thus remove an irritant for Muslims and a key recruiting point for al Qaida. But we couldn’t say that because it would look like we were meeting Osama bin Laden’s demands.
However, the more I learned, the more I began to think that US policy interests, if they didn’t take a back seat to special interests, were at least being shoved over to the passenger’s side.
Forgot this part:
This thread is about Israel’s influence, so that has been my focus here. I think if you fish around you’ll find plenty of threads about Halliburton’s influence, about the Bush family’s connections with the Saudis, about the “military-industrial complex” and its influence on decisions to go to war, and about oil interests.
Outside these boards, we’ve seen Michael Moore explore the Bush family connection to the Saudis and the interests of Halliburton and the oil industry (in Farenheit 9/11). And we’ve seen the film Why We Fight explore the role of the defense indutry in propagating war.
May I suggest (and it’s a friendly suggestion) that it may be a matter of perception on your part? That you just notice it more when Israel is the subject of scrutiny?
Raking over old coals, the location of embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is simply convenience.
a) Tel Aviv is a heck of a lot safer
b) The really good bit of Jerusalem, the old city is useless for embassies
c) The new adminstrative areas of Jerusalem are not ideal for embassies
d) The embassies were in Tel Aviv in 1967 - moving is a PITA
e) Tel Aviv is closer to the beach than Jerusalem
Much as I like Jerusalem, should the UK government be foolish enough to appoint me ambassador to Israel, I would fight tooth and nail to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv.
I like fresh seafood - and ambling along the beach.
Someone said that the USA started disliking Iraq when the Ba’athists took over, news to me, they were great buddies during the Iran-Iraq war - things changed in 1991.
Of course the Israelis make an effort to keep on good terms with USA officials, that is what sensible diplomats do, but I would be wary of identifying Americans of Jewish faith or descent with Israel - the Israelis really are (from my observation) a very distinct nation.
I am suspicious that Israel publicly kept quiet about the absence of WMD, my impression was that they were watching interestedly from the sidelines. Bear in mind Saddam did lob Scuds at Tel Aviv in 1991 (I was told the Patriots did more damage), but I reckon that they understand the ME a lot better than most people - I don’t recall any great enthusiasm for the second Gulf War - and I don’t see that Israel has benefited or lost much from it.
You’ve probably heard about the recent development in Syria, when Syrian guards fought off suicide bombers having a go at the US embassy - a fortunate event that is one of a chain - about a month ago I heard on the radio an Israeli minister talking about a ‘rapprochement’ with Syria.
For as long as I’ve been aware of things, the USA has wanted stable, friendly regimes in the ME - the trouble is that it does not seem to have realized that trying to export ‘democracy’ de-stabilizes the place.