Yes, but going to war to achieve that is where it becomes problematic.
Ah, the unavoidable collateral damage scenario alluded to earlier.
My feelings exactly.
Which, in and of itself, is an interesting stand alone observation. It’s been a near article of faith among US policymakers until just recently that representative democracy would cure all sectarian ills if implemented. The failure of representative democracy to do much in Iraq toward this end is a deadly, but fascinating, political experiment.
Representative democracy at the point of a gun “took” in other nations like Japan even though it had an utterly different political culture, so this notion was not without some past successes, but it’s sputtering in Iraq and without intense US support may flame out entirely into civil war.
Is the middle east not “ready” for representative democracy? Is the political culture too tribal and primitive for investing in democracy, or is it just too “different”?
Exactly. If the Office for Special Plans was disproportionately stacked with oil tycoons or ex-defense contractors who have a documented record of advocating regime change for the stated purpose of increasing access to oil and/or making money AND this record far precedes the official justification that was given for war, I should hope most rational people would think “well, gee, maybe oil/defense contracting special interests are behind this war and not national defense.”
As it is, the oil tycoons and former defense contractors reside in the White House, but there is no reason why we shouldn’t be looking at the interests of other officials who had a role in the build up to war.
What a strange contention. Arguments like this are, unfortunately, rather common and many seem not to grok the inherent an rather old anti-semitic canard. spoke- has used it at least once, himself.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7729002&postcount=174)
Are there any other countires on earth that Americans are regularly accused of being secretly in league with and/or having a hidden agenda regarding? If an American argued for a strong EU, would they tacitly be accused of selling their own country out? Have you seen Dopers use that ploy when someone, say, discusses Britain, or France? “I can’t help but wonder, given your history of strong support for French foreign policy, if your primary concern isn’t France’s strength and you’re willing to sacrifice your own home for France’s sake.”
I mean, hell, of course my primary concern is life in America. I live here.
This line of speculation is much too close to traditional claims that the Jewish population within any country wasn’t “really” members of that nationality, but a sinister outpost of worldly Jewery who might at any point sabotage the nation for the sake of “The Jews.” And without proof, that’s all this speculation boils down to. A much more rational, and less inflammatory claim might be that there are those in America who hold different views about what’s best for America, and what alliances we should hold, and how we should support those allies for our own best interests.
And there are, of course, numerous valid points of view as to what America’s best interests are; handwaving them away with vague insinuations of hidden Israeli agendas does not even begin to approach being a ‘worthy’ smear. And yes, folks who perpetuate the “hidden Israeli influence” meme may often mean well, but they are undoubtedly a hair’s breadth from typical claims of a “Zionist Occupied Government.”
Instead of saying “I don’t believe that your views as to what’s best for America jive with my views.” the claim is made “Because you hold different views about what’s best for America, you’re probably (or defintely) covertly aiding Israel at our expense.”
As it is, this thread we’ve seen the accusation bandied about that, essentially, anybody who holds differing views on America’s best interests, and that those views happent to coincide in some respects with Israel’s views, might very well want Israel to prosper at the US’s expense. The evidence for this being mostly “it could be, might be, seems like, feels like, etc…”
A rational person might ask if those interests could dovetail with American interests, or if people could have multiple motivations, or motivations that change over time, etc…
A rational person might realize that just because a question can be asked, that it doesn’t mean that the implication of the question is true.
A rational person might recognize the epistemological difference between speculation and proven facts.
Proof by ‘voicing suspicions’ is hardly the basis for a compelling argument.
Finn, instead of quoting me out of context, would you mind linking the thread?
Your strident defense of Israel on these boards is the context which led me to wonder about your allegiances, NOT the mere fact that you are a Jew.
Do you see the distinction?
The hand waving here is mostly yours re the insinuation that looking at the current situation in the middle east and asking how we got from point A to point B is supporting some sort of crypto-anti-Semitic “meme”.
Beyond this, I don’t really think that the argument is being advanced that there’s anything truly “secret” at this point about the interplay of the connections and interests involved in the actions and decisions that got us enmeshed in Iraq. They’re all pretty much out in the open. No one is saying this was some weaselly spying. It’s a realpolitik collision of state interests.
The main issue (IMO) is whether there is a bright line being drawn by influential and powerful people charged with America’s security and it’s best interests, regarding the determination where the best interests and security of America, and the best interests and security of Israel converge and diverge.
Manipulating, controlling and massaging intelligence information to keep pushing US decision makers toward the goal of invading Iraq is/was not (again IMO) necessarily in the best interests of the US, and it was directly aligned with the goals of the neo-con agenda to protect and secure Israel.
Asking “How the hell did this happen?” is not anti-semitic or anti-Israel, it’s practical politics.
Connect-the-dots enthusiasts should check out this editorial in the 9/13 edition of USA Today on “Disturbing delusions”.
Excerpt:
*"Inevitably, some gullible part of the population will fall victim to such delusions. Rumors that President Franklin Roosevelt knowingly left Pearl Harbor’s defenses down so he’d have an excuse to enter World War II persisted for decades. But it was always a fringe notion. For so many to believe something as preposterous as today’s theories suggests a cynicism about the nation that is at least disturbing and perhaps dangerous…
U.S. conspiracists have spun a complex web of supposed facts that deny elaborate evidence to the contrary. Some claim that a helicopter photographed over the burning World Trade Center towers isn’t a would-be rescue craft; it’s the sinister military chopper that directed drone jets into the buildings. Or that the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by an airliner; it was a cruise missile or small military jet. And so on…
Perhaps Americans believe such things because the truth is less interesting, or more depressing… For so many Americans to believe otherwise reflects a corrosive lack of trust, in government and our national character. Perhaps it’s the lingering legacy of Vietnam and Watergate. Perhaps it’s the byproduct of the relentless demonization of today’s politics. Either way, it makes the fight much harder to win, and achieving rational solutions to other problems all but impossible.* (bolding added).
Even if those interests do happen to dovetail with American interests, etc., do you dispute that the primary interest should always be our national security? I mean, that was the stated reason for why we went to war. If the real reason we went to war only “dovetailed” with protecting our country, that’s unacceptable.
And a rational person wouldn’t assume that earlier motivations changed to something else without having an idea of what those motivations would change to.
A rational person might realize that just because a question is asked, that doesn’t mean someone is saying that something is definitely true. In fact, a question allows for uncertainty just by being a question. The scientific method begins by recognizing certain patterns and asking questions about those patterns. If you don’t allow questions to even be asked without shouting them down, how do you expect to find out the answers to those questions? It’s anti-science.
[quote[A rational person might recognize the epistemological difference between speculation and proven facts.[/quote]
Who has presented speculation as proven fact?
So if I dig up examples of you “voicing suspicions” about the administration’s sundry connections and its motivations for war using sources no different than the kind cited in this discussion, can I expect to see you chatise yourself for making wasting precious bandwidth by making uncompelling arguments?
Here’s the post that he’s linking to.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7729002&postcount=174
It seems like he tried to link to it in his post, but he made some coding mistake.
Speaking for myself, if at any time you see me stringing together a series of dubious postulates and unrelated “facts” to make a defective chain of reasoning arguing some off-the-wall proposition, you may chastise me and I will follow suit.
OK, now I’m getting a little sick of this straw man bullshit. Nobody here is espousing any conspiracy theory.
You seem to imply that we’re getting into tinfoil hat territory by drawing lines between the relationships, and interests involved in getting up into Iraq , but I don’t think secret conspiracies, and/or hidden agendas are really what is at issue here. The neocons addressing the notion of Israeli security have never made a secret of their agenda or postures regarding the desirability of a pliable middle east political landscape. The issue is how you get from point A to point B in trying to move toward that scenario, and how the state interests of the US are being served in that context.
In this case, there is the impression that gatekeeper neocons deliberately maneuvered and steered the US into the path of Iraq by filtering and controlling the flow of the intelligence and information available to make decisions. Pointing out the fact that these efforts meaningfully influenced the decision to invade Iraq is not some conspiratorial delusion. No one is accusing these gatekeepers of being Israeli moles, their neocon ME agenda cards were on the table. The issue is if the best interests of the US were really being served by these machinations.
You seem to forget that the blog piece you originally cited claimed that a “crazed” Israeli goal was the “breakup and atomization of the Arab-Muslim world” and that in “the most effective covert campaign in history” that Israel’s supporters in the U.S. had “seized control” of the government.
Some posters here, while suggesting that they don’t quite buy into all this as stated, have supported a lot of the basic ideas these people spout, including disloyal-neocons-controlling-the-government, plans for wiping out Middle East nations right and left and so on. There isn’t a lot of difference between proclaiming outright that there’s a conspiracy, and coyly suggesting that it could be, gee we can’t exclude the possibility, we must be highly vigilant in the presence of this Danger, ad nauseam. I made the comparison to Lyndon Larouche (king of the bizarre conspiracy theory) earlier. Lyndon also tended to avoid direct accusations, preferring to say things like “Could it be that…”(the Queen of England is behind massive drug trafficking, Jews control virtually everything etc. etc.). It should be embarassing to find oneself using similar what-if language to legitimize claims only slightly less bizarre than what Lyndon churned out.
So yes, I think that a lot of the connect-the-dots stuff in this thread is the kind of thing the editorial (along with many of us) find objectionable and damaging to our ability to find rational solutions to our problems.
Naw, no mistake. The quote I posted is a link.
As you go on to conflate primary concerns with ‘solitary’ and/or ‘the only major’ concerns, then no, under your rather unique set of definitions the answer is no. Decisions can be made that benefit both national security and other considerations as well.
I see we’ve moved on from debate-by-insinuation to debate-by-fiat. Geopolitics aren’t a game of checkers. You can accomplish multiple objectives with single actions. We might have invaded Iraq, for example, to benefit the American economy, adopt a ‘big stick’ strategy for dealing with ME nations, help our numerous allies in the region, exert our strength as a superpower to intimidate other nations the world over, etc…
Saying that one cannot have a constelation of reasons, including but not limited to direct gains for America, and that doing so is by fiat “unacceptable”? Well, it doesn’t do much in terms of honest debate.
Nor is deciding, by fiat, what constitutes America’s best short-term and long-term interests. There are numerous legitimate points of view, and unless you’re real good at predicting the future, these whispers of quasi-traitorous rogues sabotaging American foreign policy serve no real purpose.
Wrong. One does not take a position paper written close to a decade earlier and then assume with any solid knowledge that not only had all the person’s ideas and ideals stayed the same, but that they had executed them exactly as thought up in a vacuum.
One does not have to have any idea of what those motivations would change to. The burden of proof is on you, if you claim that something is an accurate representation of not just someone’s current views, but their current actions and motivations.
It is not rational to assume zero personal or ideological growth over a decade’s time, or more. It is not rational to assume that an intellectual position paper from a decade in the past will accurately reflect how negotiations, compromise, agendas, and political decisions will be made among a host of varying players.
Well, if you want to engage in navel gazing, that’s your right I suppose. You could, of course, do better and ask questions that you actually hoped to answer, and hoped to answer in a logical manner rather than asking a question and then simply spinning yarns that feel right to you.
No. Again, just because a question implies an answer, doesn’t mean that there is one, or that the implication is correct. I can say “Hmmmm… I wonder if people are really made of bologna.” That doesn’t mean that there’s actual uncertainty.
False analogy, and absurd to boot. To start with, you’ve admitted you’re not asking a question you’re even trying to answer in good faith. You’ve admitted that you believe that simply asking a question means that there’s uncertainty. And you’ve blisfully ignored the fact that one not only has to try to ask the right questions, but that if there isn’t evidence to support any conclusions, that there’s not much to be said.
Unless you want to play a rousing game of proof-by-supposition.
Have you actually read some of the cites and posts in this thread? Some have tried to draw hard conclusions from soft data, like sevastopol’s predictable posts. Others, it seems, I gave too much credit to. And as Jack points out, speculation and insinuation seems to be the sum total of those arguments.
I suppose I would “chastise myself” for “wasting bandwidth” and making “uncompelling arguments” if I was ten shades too serious. I might instead say that an argument I advanced was, in hindsight, poorly constructed.
So dig away.
I did link the thread.
And I did not quote you out of context. That was the entirety of your quote.
The quibble over whether you were accusing someone of being a Zionist or a Jewish pawn is rather insignificant, wouldn’t you think?
How many other countries do you accuse people of harboring secret allegiance to, if they support some of that country’s actions? Any? Is Israel somehow special that it would cause Americans to nefariously harm their own country for its benefit?
Bull, and I suspect that you know it, too. Deliberately ignoring, for example, that people might support America’s interests via Israel, or that the two might share interests is something that’s only been given weight by folks like Jack. The rest have been varying shades of argument-via-assumption to outright distortions and lies.
And you also know full well that asking how we got from point A to point B is a heck of a lot different than proposing, via supposition only, that there exists a contingent of people willing to harm America in order to help Israel. That is, without a doubt, an anti-semitic meme. And that is, again, without a doubt, an intellectually dishonest handwaving away of the fact that reasonable people can and do differ as to what’s in America’s best interests.
You’re honestly going to claim that all of these ‘revelations’ about the ‘pro-Israel tendencies’ of neocons were all out in the open? That the claims that we ‘invaded Iraq for Israel’ were part of Bush’s stated reasons for going to war? :dubious:
If not, then of course we’re dealing with claims of a secret conspiracy.
No, they’re out in the open now largely because conspiracy mongers have been propegating this meme. Almost all of the claims made do indeed say there was something “weaselly” going on, as they claim that American policy makers secretly sacrificed American interests, lives, and money in order to help Israel and not to help America.
And yes, a “realpolitik collision of state interests” would, indeed, suggest that American political figures were putting the interests of another state above our own. And as that was never part of the stated reasons for going to war, that would make it a hidden agenda.
To be determined by who, exactly?
This is the exact handwaving I describe, and you ignored. There are many differeing views as to what’s best for America. You (pl) want to point to some as a “realpolitik collision of state interests”, or people helping Israel knowing it will harm America, or people being somehow unable to tell one nation’s concerns apart from another’s.
Which brings us back to a secret conspiracy. Are you suggesting that everybody from the VP on down who had hands on roles with our intel services were ‘directly aligned’ with protecting and securing Israel, and not with what they believed US interests to be? Only some of them, perhaps, were in on this scheme?
Neat strawman. But no, simply asking what the political process was that got us here isn’t anti-semitic. Nor did I ever say it was.
The ability to ask a question doesn’t mean that the implications are valid, or that anything one constructs via supposition is both valid and sound.
Discussions of secret allegiances to Israel, or people who place one state’s interests above our own, etc… are not practical politics. Not unless they’re based on actual facts instead of suppositions.
“Person X supports Israel, so he is unable to tell where his own country’s interests lie, or may have deliberately harmed his own country to help Israel” is so absurd that it shouldn’t require discussion. We don’t do that for people who support other nation’s policies, why do you think that is?
I also see that both you and spoke- have totally ignored the question about which other countries you accuse Americans of secretly (or overtly) being in league with to America’s detriment either wilfully or by accident.
The context of that quote, Finn, was that you were arguing (with your typical shrillness) for the US to launch a strike on Iran.
And that was not the entirety of my quote.
And no, you did not link the thread; you linked the post.
Out of context.
Misleadingly.
Dishonestly.
I will answer your question with a question: What other country has individuals writing policy papers for its leaders and then taking positions in the White House, from which they begin to push for the fulfillment of the objectives set forth in said policy paper?
After all your obfuscation and evasion, you still don’t touch on the fact that, in full tinfoil hat logic, you pulled an absurd accusation out of thin air and accused me of being some sort of quisling, simply because I’ve supported Israel in certain situations.
That you still refuse to answer why this absurd slur is directed at someone who has supported Israel, but not any other nation speaks for itself. The fact of your intellectually barren attempts at painting me as some sort of quisling, some Zionist patsy, rather than actually continuing to discuss claims in an honorable manner also speaks for itself.
Likewise, you are current unable or unwilling to retract your silly little slander or recgnoize why games of make-believe that culminate in pure 100% ad hominem fallacies aren’t exactly fruitful.
And the fact that not only do you refuse to quit your game of questionoing-loyalty -and-patriotism-via-insinuation is only a fraction different than age old slanders about “Zionist influence/control” of the world.
Ahhhh, good, when you can’t address my claims, discuss my posts as ‘shrill’, as if that means anything. First handwave away my points with an ad hominem fantasy of hidden agendas you made up, and then when you’re called on it, evade, evade, evade. Good job.
Defintely don’t address the fact that you responded to me talking about a country in the ME and oh so very cutely stated that I might just possibly be a liar and a near-traitor, a quisling and a Zionist and/or Jewish pawn… don’t address the fact that you all but called me a liar and an American whose true loyalty lies to Israel while I pretend otherwise (and twirl my moustache, I suppose).
No, instead of doing any of that, you should whine about my posts being ‘shrill’.
And, no, the context, which I supplied, was that you suggested that I might have a secret agenda for Israel at the detriment of America. Even though I’d spelled out my position. When I said I thought that a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous, your response was to don the tinfoil hat and suggest that I had a seeeekrit hidden agenda that I was dishonestly arguing for… whatever reason you dreamed up that I’d have that hidden agenda to begin with.
Now that’s an absolute lie. Why lie when I just linked to your words in black and white?
Your entire quote accusing me of having a secret agenda for Israel was included in my post. The exact quote I supplied had not one single word changed or omitted.
Honestly, why on earth would you lie about something like that?
Clutching at straws, aintcha? Theink to the post contains the thread. Just hit the little hyperlink at the top of the screen.
Pffft. I doubt you even believe that, as it’s quite a stretch. I quoted your relevant accusation, I linked to the post that you made, wherein all my quotes that you were responding to were plainly listed.
In this case, the context was quite clear. I stated, clearly, that I believed a nuclear Iran was a threat. You coyly accused me of having a secret and dishonest hidden agenda behind my actual argument. Based on, of course, your powers of imagination.
Bullshit. What on earth was misleading?
Did you not say what you said? What context do you have to invent to justify your silly slander?
Now you’re just flinging random words that sound good to you. There’s no context missing when I cite the exact post that contains my exact statement that you responded to with your exact slander. There’s nothing dishonest about quoting your exact accusation, verbatim.
But there is in not owning up to your own words, spoke-
In other words, you’ll ignore my question and obfuscate. Check.
Pretty neat obfuscation, you might be quite proud. But, no, I, for instance, have never written one of those position papers, and yet you accused me, via insinuation and flight of fantasy, of secretly arguing with false motives and claims in order to support Israel at America’s expense.
If you remember, that was what my question was about. (Weren’t you just complaining about context?)
Unless, of course, you really do believe that there’s some sort of Zionist Conspiracy and the fact that some neocons also support Israel means that people who post on message boards that also support Israel are guilty of the same sort of quisling behavior.
And I can’t quite believe the level of willful ignorance you’re mustering here. You’re honestly going to claim that nobody in the government or the White House published memos or position papers on, say, NATO? Are you eagerly trying to track those people down and suggest, via inuendo, supposition, and insinuation, that they put Europe’s interests above America’s? Or that major American political decisions were made, secretely, to benefit Europe at our expense?
Do people like the VP also participate in this conspiracy? Or are his loyalties pure and untainted by traitorous Zionism? :rolleyes: Was the VP, who took a very active role in the crafting of the case for war, just an ignorant bumpkin? Did he just blindly go along with this Zionist Plot [sup]tm[/sup]. Did Bush know about it?
And, hmmm, that position paper called for taking “the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.” But obviously “our vital interests” is just code for “our hidden Zionist loyalties which trump our patriotism and loyalty to our own country.”
Here’s the letter itself, cosigned by that arch-secret-Zionist Rummy.
No? Odd… that.
And, wait… here they talk about their strategic goals, including places like Europe. Hey! That means we can probably suppose that all PNAC members secretely want to support Israel and Europe (and a few other places) at America’s expense, right?
No?
But surely every time the administration has acted when its own interests dovetailed that of Europe, you’ve immeditely leapt to suppositions of “European influence” and Americans who secretly support Europe above their own home, right?
No again?
I wonder why…
Even stranger that in all your obfuscative dodge of why you’re only interested in tracking down “Zionist” connections among politicians (and other posters). Ah well, guess you just won’t retract that silly little slander.
You may have noticed that I had refrained from addressing the content of the article, even though some of its content is easily disputable and even self-contradictory (examples upon request). Instead, I claimed that it is irrelevant as a proof to your earlier allegation.
Ah, yes. You know, sometimes minds are like trash cans: when open, people fill them with junk.
with regards to Icarus from another forum I visit
Wow. You really think I should read the whole page, not just your snippets? Thanks for the tip. :dubious:
Let’s review: you original accusation was:
To back that up you present a neutrality-disputed wiki article about Douglas Feith, who is seemingly a bright guy with extreme-right agenda. The man (whose views are far removed from my own, BTW) seems to oppose just about any settlement or treaty that is aimed against policy-of-force or total US domination (the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Oslo Accords and the Israel-Egypt Camp David peace agreement). And, yes, in addition he is also an Israel supporter (although I think his support is causing harm, but he is entitled to his own views).
But even if - just for the sake of argument - we’ll accept every allegation and unproved suspicion of the man as true, do you seriously claim that the existence of this single man is in any way a proof of the existence of an overall neo-con agenda, that had always been not only pro-Israeli, but rather calling for the use of US military against US interests to support Israel?
Oh, and he was also a lobbyist for Turkey, and represented defense corporations - both of which had benefits from the Iraq war. Maybe it was in their interest he was operating? But no, they’re not part of the Zionist Conspiracy, right?
I will not discuss this link as I did not read it. You see, long time ago, I made myself a rule of not reading anything published by such sources that have published such classic anti-Semitic canard as the Jews are spreading diseases:
BTW, other gems from the same source include, among others, suggestions that ObL had nothing to do with 9/11, that it was instead a Jewish/Zionist plot, that even if it was ObL, it was a natural reaction, and the idea that the way to promote peace is to arm Islamic militants to the point were they may endanger western civilization (cites upon request). :dubious:
This link I did read. I fail to see what it shows (other than your total disrespect for my time).
Lets see. It’s an article (from 2004) who opening image depicts a star of Davod hovering above the pentagon. It then quotes “knowledgeable sources, who asked to not be identified” about a series of FBI investigations against high-profile neo-cons. I assume that the lack of results from this investigation is due to the Zionist takeover of the FBI…
It then direct it’s reader to " lengthy investigative story by Stephen Green, published by Counterpunch" (yes, the same reliable source).
One thing I found especially funny was the story about Promis (I won’t quote it, as it’s rather long, and can be read by following Sevastopol’s link). According to AT, Promis is a “powerful software” developed in the early 1980’s (I’m sure many pieces of software from the 1980’s are powerful enough to be used today…). This software, according to AT, was purchased by the Israeli Mossad, and then re-distributed in the black market with the addition of a “trap-door” that allows the seller to follow the actions of the buyer. This software was purchased by Al-Qaeda. Now, it would appear to me that this would allow the Mossad to spy on AQ, right? Not according to AT, that claims:
It then tells the story of Larry Franklin. It follows by a long list of Franklin’s and Feith’s links with other high-officials (who would have thunk?) Every neo-con who had anything to do with foreign policy is hinted (at least) to have secret agenda – without any proof, naturally. It routinely quote “sources with personal knowledge”, " Pentagon officials", and such. If things were investigated and found OK, it was due to “political appointees”.
The piece ends with:
Why? Because they say so.
Please. It’s a piece of blunt propaganda, at best.
Do you even realize how stupid is sounds?
I am well-capable of phrasing my own arguments, but thank you all the same.
What I do argue is that the claim that the number three guy in the DoD is the one who decided that a regime change in Iraq is due (wasn’t that the Iraq Liberation Act from Clinton’s time?), set the foreign policy accordingly (isn’t it the president’s job?) and declared war (not the congress?) is absurd.
As this is not the Pit, I’m not free to say what I really feel bites lips.
Huh? What exactly am I supposed to be giving weight to? 