Is this a serious agenda by US Neo-cons & Israel?

[FinnAgain]

Heh, sorry. To clarify:

On a non-conspiracy based reading of motivations:

What evidence do you have for this allegation? Seems to me that a more credible statement would be that some aspects of policy proposals made by certain PNAC members are similar to views held by figures in the Bush Administration (I would have similar difficulty if someone claimed that “Democratic Party policy was conceived by moveon.org and dailykos.com”).

On a convergence of ideas rather than a hidden agenda.

As for PNAC, what of it if some ideas espoused in its position papers have had influence in this Administration? Doesn’t it make more sense to critique those ideas rather than huff and puff about “conceived in conservative think tanks”? There are all sorts of think tanks and foundations churning out policy proposals from right and left-wing viewpoints. Again, you seem to be unduly interested in stoking vague fears based on a specter of shadowy outside organizations.

On the hypocritical slander of ‘divided loyalties’

I’d like to think that policies and the people who promote them can be dicussed on a pro/con basis without hints and smirks about the ethnicity of those involved, but apparently there’s not enough meat on those bones for some. Or if one is not winning the argument, the temptation arises to stir resentment against ones’ foes by other means.

As to that oldie but goodie about “divided loyalties” - how many people making this argument are the same folks who are outraged when members of the Bush Administration question the patriotism of those who oppose our involvement in the Iraq conflict?

I was wrong though, as Lemur also made a first rate post about how various ideological bedfellows are singled out with the “dual-loyalty” canard.

And, of course, Puzzler also had quite a few good shots in there. I shouldn’t have focused on you, just wanted to point out that few folks were giving rational non-conspiracy answers as to convergences in ideology and non-innuendo based discussions of motive.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Sevastopol]

[QUOTE=Puzzler]
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…

Let’s review: you original accusation was:
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
…a primary part of the American Neo-Con agenda has always been the use of the US military to benefit the security of Israel.
[/QUOTE]
…
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?
[/QUOTE]
To repeat my earlier post, the biography of Douglas Feith is an apt starting point for addressing the issue. This alone is not ‘proof’ in the vernacular sense of an overall neo-con agenda. What it does show is one solid evidentiary basis to form an ultimate view of the agenda and methods of the neo-cons. You want more? spoke- has eloquently collated histories of Wolfowitz & Perle. I myself have further historical evidence.
[QUOTE=Puzzler]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Are you paying attention to this thread? “Zionist Conspiracy” is a sure-fire way to discredit your position. Who’s said anything about a Zionist Conspiracy? Observe the treatment other posters have given this sort of phraseology.
[QUOTE=Puzzler]
I will not discuss this link as I did not read it.
[/QUOTE]
You do realise those links are taken from the Wiki article?..

@Sevastopol

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?

[QUOTE=Puzzler]
Do you even realize how stupid is sounds?
[/QUOTE]
George Bush started a war against a country that had nothing to do with the attack and told us he was looking for dangerous weapons that weren’t there. We’re talking about stupid behaviour here. Not for nothing is Feith known as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” So, sure it’s stupid. It is also true. To dispute this you need something better than ‘it’s stupid’. For an example, how do you think the following is irrelevant:

Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated “A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own?”

[QUOTE=Puzzler]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Might be, if anyone had said he acted alone.
[QUOTE=Puzzler]
As this is not the Pit, I’m not free to say what I really feel bites lips.
[/QUOTE]
Pit’s open, feel free. I’m responding to you, so you know you aren’t on my ignore list. Imagine pitting someone who has you on ‘ignore’. Would never happen I suppose, someone would point out the fact in no time and the thread would shut down. Still it’d be a laugh if such a thing survived, displacing Feith as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” Anyway, I digress.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
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.
[/quote]

But the question still remains: What benefit does the Iraq war have to our national security? What compelling reason do we have to believe that this war could make us safer? Do you know? You now seem to be taking the position that the chickenhawk administration that put us in Iraq did so because they really believed the country could hurt us, and that’s why the idea that there may be a pro-Israel component to their decision doesn’t bother you. And yet I have a feeling that if we weren’t talking about Israel but rather Halliburton, your tone would be a little bit more scathing.

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…

And yet none of these reasons justify preemptive war. “Helping our numerous allies in the region” is not a good enough reason to go against the UN Security Council and invade another country.

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.

If we were talking about oil and Halliburton as being among these “constellation of reasons” for launching an illegal war, would you be joining me in calling that unacceptable? Because only a Kool-aid intoxicated ditto head would say those reasons permit or mitigate what we have done. I fail to see why the same logic doesn’t apply to “helping our numerous allies in the region”. That’s as unacceptable as going to war to help our petroleum interests. Pretending otherwise hurts honest debate.

That’s the first time, by the way, I’ve heard anyone say we have numerous allies in the ME; it’s also the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest with a straight face that we might have gone to war to help all of these numerous allies. Who might these be?

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.

I haven’t whispered anything about quasi-traitorous rogues, but I have little respect for anyone who got us into this predicament for reasons other than my country’s national security. I don’t care if those “rogues” are crooked millionaires with ties to defense contractors, or if those “rogues” are power-hungry neoconservatives who look at all of this like one big chess game centered around Israel. They need to get the hell out of my government whoever they are.

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.

So again, since you seem to employ a whole different set of reasoning skills when Israel is the special interest being discussed, how would you view a ten-year old position paper written by Cheney in which he advocated Iraqi invasion, citing not our national security interest as the basis for his recommendation, but oil? What would make you assume that suddenly in 2003, that position paper is completely and totally irrelevant in assessing possible reasons why we are in the rather non sequitur situation we are in today?

According to your logic, if cops investigating a murder came across a letter written by the victim’s former lover which read “one of these days, I’m gonna stab you in the heart for breaking my heart” and this letter was written five years before the victim was found dead with a knife sticking out of their chest, then the cops should disregard that letter because “motivations change, you know?” Ludicrous.

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.

This logic sounds too wacky to even qualify as specious.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
But the question still remains: What benefit does the Iraq war have to our national security? What compelling reason do we have to believe that this war could make us safer? Do you know?
[/quote]

I’ve already detailed some of the stated reasons, and you’ve handwaved them away. I’m not sure I’m eager to play this game.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

You now seem to be taking the position that the chickenhawk administration that put us in Iraq did so because they really believed the country could hurt us,
[/quote]

No, nowhere did I say that. I did mention a host of reasons, and I do not understand why you’ve deliberately ignored them.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

and that’s why the idea that there may be a pro-Israel component to their decision doesn’t bother you.
[/quote]

So you’ve created a strawman position that I never even hinted at holding in order to conclude something not supported by actual evidence. Not exactly kosher according to Hoyle.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

And yet I have a feeling that if we weren’t talking about Israel but rather Halliburton, your tone would be a little bit more scathing.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I certainly can’t see a difference between maintaining strategic alliances with multiple nations, geopolitical relations and international security, the proper use of force in terms of foreign policy, and Halliburton. I should treat, say, supporting Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc… as exactly the same as war profiteering. Yeah…

So you done any of that ominous digging yet?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

And yet none of these reasons justify preemptive war.
[/quote]

You really do have a problem with these arguments-by-fiat. When given a host of reasons that one might have made a different decision than you, and the fact that one might hold (gasp!) different values and axioms than you, you simply handwave them away. To you, by fiat, they’re wrong. And so, of course, one then focuses on the innuendo and insinuations of people with ‘connections’ to Israel.

Funny, of course, that nobody has made those claims about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, or any of the majority of other politicians who have also supported our alliance with Israel. Hrmmm… wonder why that is, much?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

“Helping our numerous allies in the region” is not a good enough reason to go against the UN Security Council and invade another country.
[/quote]

So of course, by fiat, you’ve decided what is and is not a valid reason in someone else’s belief system, and that an “Israeli connection” must be posited to explain why they were wrong (via your proof by fiat).

[QUOTE=you with the face]

If we were talking about oil and Halliburton as being among these “constellation of reasons” for launching an illegal war, would you be joining me in calling that unacceptable?
[/quote]

You’re conflating numerous issues, and expecting that one pat answer will solve them all? Halliburton’s intersts do not necessarily converge with our national interests, but securing the flow of oil, in general, does.

Moreoever, as your question is so very strange, I’m not even sure what to do with it. Of course if different interests were being served the situation would be different. If we went to war not because the administration believed that we needed to assert our role as the sole superpower, or because we wanted to remove a destabilizaing force in the ME, etc… but because we wanted to create new markets for McDonalds, that would be a different situation. Different situations are, in fact, different. What’s your point?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Because only a Kool-aid intoxicated ditto head would say those reasons permit or mitigate what we have done.
[/quote]

Care to make an argument to go along with that ad hominem fallacy?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I fail to see why the same logic doesn’t apply to “helping our numerous allies in the region”. That’s as unacceptable as going to war to help our petroleum interests.
[/quote]

Again, the fact that you are, by your own admission, unable to see how other people could come to conclusions that have the nerve to be different from yours says quite a bit. That you then handwave away their worldviews as “unacceptable” again, by fiat, says quite a bit. As done the fact that from your position of faux ideological perfection, you decide that anybody who believes other than you is a “kool-aid intoxicated ditto head”. But of course, then you go on to whine about things that’re conducive to good debate.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Pretending otherwise hurts honest debate.
[/quote]

No, actually, that’d be your behavior. Some would certainly argue, with a cogent and consistent position, that natural resources justify aggressive foreign policy. You could either debate those ideas on their merits, or handwave them away with ad hominem fallacies and similar tactics. And then complain that anybody who doesn’t hold you exact worldview is ‘hurting’ the debate.

Oh, how the debate would be helped if only everybody simply agreed with everything you said, all your values, conclusions, axioms, and your perfect, flawless, and eternal standards of what is “acceptable” and not. That’d sure make for a good debate. Yep.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

That’s the first time, by the way, I’ve heard anyone say we have numerous allies in the ME;
[/quote]

You might, ya know, want to read up on the region in that case.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

it’s also the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest with a straight face that we might have gone to war to help all of these numerous allies. Who might these be?
[/quote]

You’re ignorant of our relations with ME nations, and cast that ignorance as some sort of strength? You’ve never seen someone ‘with a straight face’ talk about what’s actually going on in that corner of the world?

Have you never heard of Saudi Arabia, instance? The countries we sell arms to and support for strategic reasons, like Egypt? Remember a nation called Kuwait and what we did when they were threatened? The history of American interests and actions in the Gulf?

Honestly, you’ve never heard of any of that?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I haven’t whispered anything about quasi-traitorous rogues, but I have little respect for anyone who got us into this predicament for reasons other than my country’s national security.
[/quote]

Bull. Someone with ‘dual loyalties’ who puts another country above their own is indeed a quasi-traitorous rogue. And, yes, I know, you have a non-nuanced worldview maintaned by fiat and used as a club to bash anybody you don’t find “acceptable”. Yes, if someone did something that they thought would help America, and also support allies, then in your mind, by fiat, that’s simply “wrong”.

Against such logic the Gods themselves argue in vain.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I don’t care if those “rogues” are crooked millionaires with ties to defense contractors, or if those “rogues” are power-hungry neoconservatives who look at all of this like one big chess game centered around Israel.
[/quote]

So the first, you’re upset due to guilt-by-association (and I suppose proof by innuendo) and the second you’ve created a strawman to fight against. Or maybe, due to your hopelessly simplistic stance on foreign policy, you really don’t understand the concept of strategic interests and alliances? There is a difference between maintaining US influence and regional stability, and your fantasy chess game.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

So again, since you seem to employ a whole different set of reasoning skills when Israel is the special interest being discussed, how would you view a ten-year old position paper written by Cheney in which he advocated Iraqi invasion, citing not our national security interest as the basis for his recommendation, but oil?
[/quote]

First, I’d point out that you’re being increadbily and wilfully dishonest in claiming that I use a different set of reasoning when Israel is the special interst being discussed. You’re simply making that up. Nobody has even proven that the Bush administration made this decision simply based on Israel, all we have is a flurry of innuendo.

You’re also making up what the actual justifications for war were, which even in the position papers were not simply for Israel’s sake with no American benefits. But, again, as by fiat you’ve dismissed any concerns which aren’t exclusively based on direct national security (such as strategic alliances) as “unnaceptable” perhaps you didn’t even notice that them thar ‘nuance’.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

What would make you assume that suddenly in 2003, that position paper is completely and totally irrelevant in assessing possible reasons why we are in the rather non sequitur situation we are in today?
[/quote]

Like I’ve said, folks can babble all they’d like about ‘possibilities’ and conjecture and innuendo and what have you, but it’s a waste of time. It also falls prey to standard conspiracy theory faults, as it does not explain how all the numerous ‘non-Zionist pawns’ went along with this plan.

I notice that you, as well, have avoided talking about Bush, Rummy, Cheney, etc… Was the entire government in on this agenda of helping Israel without regard to our own intersts? Just some of them? If it was only some of them, how do you explain how they got away with it?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

According to your logic, if cops investigating a murder came across a letter written by the victim’s former lover which read “one of these days, I’m gonna stab you in the heart for breaking my heart” and this letter was written five years before the victim was found dead with a knife sticking out of their chest, then the cops should disregard that letter because “motivations change, you know?” Ludicrous.
[/quote]

If you don’t understand that a five year old letter with no other proof does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I can’t help. If you don’t understand that someone’s feelings can and do change over time, again, I can’t help. Someone could hate a boyfriend/girlfriend one year, and forget about them the next. There is a difference between circumstantial evidence and hard proof that evidently you simply do not grok.

If I found an essay you wrote ten years ago, can I claim that you hold all the exact same beliefs now? You really think that’s reasonable?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

This logic sounds too wacky to even qualify as specious.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the logic that the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim is just wacky! As is the claim that someone’s beliefs could possibly change over time. People’s beliefs never change! Find a paper someone wrote for college, and it’ll be valid 15 years later, with no divergence and no differences between theory and practice.

We know this, by fiat.

Par for the course.

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
…And so, of course, one then focuses on the innuendo and insinuations of people with ‘connections’ to Israel.

Funny, of course, that nobody has made those claims about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, or any of the majority of other politicians who have also supported our alliance with Israel. Hrmmm… wonder why that is, much?
[/quote]

Do you see the problem with decrying innuendo and insinuations in one sentence and then engaging in them two sentences later?

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Do you see the problem with decrying innuendo and insinuations in one sentence and then engaging in them two sentences later?
[/QUOTE]

Do you see the problem with you not knowing what attempting to prove something via inneundo and insinuations means? Or with pretending, if you do know what those words mean, that I engaged in anything of the sort? Do you see anything wrong with being unable to understand why simply asking someone why an intellectually dishonest formulation is used isn’t attempting to prove anything by insinuation?

Can you point to a single insinuation I made, or supposition, or claim beyond the fact that an intellectually dishonest argument is intellectually dishonest? Nope? Didn’t think so.

I pointed out intellectual dishonesty; that members of the administration like Rummy, and Cheney aren’t singled out for this “dual-loyalty” nonsense while others are. I have no idea why you and others hold such a wilfully ignorant and irrational cherry-picked views. I was simply asking someone who put one forward to ask himself why he might focus on a few members of the administartion, and ignore others.

I didn’t attempt to prove anything by sly suggestions and innuendo.
You see, I have pointed out that the argument is intellectually dishonest, which it is beyond a doubt, and asked why that might be. I have, however, not suggested anything.

You seem very confused about epistemology, unfortunately. Stating something doesn’t make sense, and that its underpinnings are dubious, is valid. Then leaping to a wild conclusion based on speculation and innuendo is no longer epistemologically valid.

But good attempt, I suppose.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’ve already detailed some of the stated reasons, and you’ve handwaved them away. I’m not sure I’m eager to play this game.
[/quote]

Repost, please? I must have missed them the first time.

No, nowhere did I say that. I did mention a host of reasons, and I do not understand why you’ve deliberately ignored them.

Were these the reasons you are talking about?

@FinnAgain

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…

Please note none of these reasons have anything to do with defending our country from imminent attack, and that’s what my question is about.

So you’ve created a strawman position that I never even hinted at holding in order to conclude something not supported by actual evidence. Not exactly kosher according to Hoyle.

I didn’t create a strawman. I said it seems as if you are giving the administration a benefit of the doubt that I find hard to believe you’d be giving if we weren’t talking about Israel. And you know what? It still seems that way.

Well, I certainly can’t see a difference between maintaining strategic alliances with multiple nations, geopolitical relations and international security, the proper use of force in terms of foreign policy, and Halliburton. I should treat, say, supporting Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc… as exactly the same as war profiteering. Yeah…

Supporting Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia for what purposes? What threat did Iraq represent to these countries that jusifies us launching an invasion? Was Saddam trying to hurt these countries? And most importantly, is there any evidence of this?

There is no moral difference between “supporting” these countries and “supporting” our petroleum interests unless you can show that Iraq was on the verge of unleashing a major offensive against one or more of these nations. If you can’t do that, then this theory has far less weight than any current speculation about Israel. What’s bewildering to me is the fact that you notably leave out Israel from this list of allies we might have gone to war for, but you include Saudi frickin’ Arabia, which, being one of furthest thing from a free country as you can get, is only our ally because of our shared oil interests.

You really do have a problem with these arguments-by-fiat. When given a host of reasons that one might have made a different decision than you, and the fact that one might hold (gasp!) different values and axioms than you, you simply handwave them away. To you, by fiat, they’re wrong.

So let me ask you, since you apparently have a problem with me making these judgments “by fiat”. Is launching a preemptive/preventive war for reasons other than self-defense acceptable, in your opinion? What does the UN Charter have to say about this issue? If your answer is “yes it is/can be acceptable”, then I’m seriously wondering where all the other opinions you spouted about the Iraq war have been coming from. Why should you care that the president lied to us about WMDs, if you think they might have some secret but fully justifiable reasons for going to war?

Funny, of course, that nobody has made those claims about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, or any of the majority of other politicians who have also supported our alliance with Israel.

Sure they have, just not as much. Probably because they aren’t members of the PNAC. Can you please put away the Reynold’s wrap?

Halliburton’s intersts do not necessarily converge with our national interests, but securing the flow of oil, in general, does.

Do you have a problem launching a preemptive war to secure this flow?

If we went to war not because the administration believed that we needed to assert our role as the sole superpower, or because we wanted to remove a destabilizaing force in the ME, etc… but because we wanted to create new markets for McDonalds, that would be a different situation.

Different situation, but unfortunately, not sufficiently different to make one a more justifiable reason for preemptive war than the other. I’d actually rather us go to war for McDonald’s than to assert “our role as the sole superpower” because at least food is a universal good. Violent bravado is not.

No, actually, that’d be your behavior. Some would certainly argue, with a cogent and consistent position, that natural resources justify aggressive foreign policy.

Are you part of this “some” who would argue that? Come out with your position already. I’m tired of you cowering behind coy rhetoric about what other people would argue because you are apparently too scared to stick your neck out and actually defend the very same adminstration that you’ve eviscerated in the past. If you think it’s okay that we went to war, in part or in whole, to serve Israel’s interest, then just say so already.

You’re ignorant of our relations with ME nations, and cast that ignorance as some sort of strength?

I’m not ignorant of the ME nations, just surprised that someone would come up in here and say without irony that we have numerous allies in the ME that we might have gone to war for. But my surprise doesn’t stop there. When someone says all of that and then attacks people for even suggesting that one of those allies is Israel, my surprise becomes befuddlement.

Have you never heard of Saudi Arabia, instance? The countries we sell arms to and support for strategic reasons, like Egypt? Remember a nation called Kuwait and what we did when they were threatened? The history of American interests and actions in the Gulf?

Uh huh. Now explain to the audience why it is likely we would have invaded Iraq to help out these “numerous” allies of ours, and why Israel is not even worth a honorable mention here.

Bull. Someone with ‘dual loyalties’ who puts another country above their own is indeed a quasi-traitorous rogue.

Okay, but so what? Any official who puts anything above the interest of their country meets this definition.

Yes, if someone did something that they thought would help America, and also support allies, then in your mind, by fiat, that’s simply “wrong”.

By most indications, America’s best interests were not in mind when we made this non sequitur war but rather something else. We were lied to and hoodwinked, and we still don’t know why. This is unacceptable to me. It may not be unacceptable to you and it may not be unacceptable to all the people who voted for Bush a second time. But it is me.

If you don’t understand that a five year old letter with no other proof does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I can’t help.

Of course it’s not proof, but you’d have to be one desperate ignoramus to not consider it evidence and some pretty damaging evidence, at that. It’s one piece of data that points to truth. Not a smoking gun, but far from irrelevant.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Sure they have, just not as much. Probably because they aren’t members of the PNAC. Can you please put away the Reynold’s wrap?
[/quote]

This level of ignorance seems typical of the conspiracy screeds going around these days.

But with massive intellectual dishonesty you ignore Rummy and Cheney, and actually have the nerve to claim that you’re ignoring them because they’re not PNAC members.

Not only are they PNAC members, but Rummy and Cheney are founding members. Are you even aware of who signed PNAC’s statement of principles?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Uh huh. Now explain to the audience why it is likely we would have invaded Iraq to help out these “numerous” allies of ours, and why Israel is not even worth a honorable mention here.
[/quote]

Because you are wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest, and arguing dishorably. After you pretended that you didn’t know what other allies we had in the ME that we might support, and after you’d harped on only one of them for the entire thread, you then want to claim a ‘gotcha’ when I pointed out those other nations you were ignoring.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

When someone says all of that and then attacks people for even suggesting that one of those allies is Israel, my surprise becomes befuddlement.
[/quote]

Go figure, you, befuddled?
You’ve either created a strawman, or you’re just lying.
I never said that Israel wasn’t one of our allies.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Are you part of this “some” who would argue that?
[/quote]

Irrelevant. We are not discussing my geoplotical philosophy, but whether or not you pretending that your bluster and bullshit about the only possible right way to do things means that nobody else coudld possibly hold a differing opinion without there being some nebulous “Israel connection.”

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Come out with your position already.
[/quote]

I’ve done so several times. I’ll do it again: your argument that is merely a game of make-believe is a sham, a farce, and a perfect example of close-minded partisan bullshit.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I’m tired of you cowering behind coy rhetoric about what other people would argue because you are apparently too scared to stick your neck out and actually defend the very same adminstration that you’ve eviscerated in the past.
[/quote]

What on earth are you going on about? I have no desire to defend the adminstration, because I don’t agree with their policies on Iraq. That doesn’t mean that you get to go hog wild and play games of insinuation and innuendo.

I know you can’t grok why someone might argue against baseless and intellectually dishonest assertions about a government, and still oppose that government’s actions. That it seems to be giving you such trouble is sad, but I don’t seem to be able to do anything about it.

I guess it’s an exercise in cognitive dissonance for you.
Why might someone oppose many of an administration’s actions, but still require epistemologically valid and intellectually honest arguments if claims are being made about that administration?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

If you think it’s okay that we went to war, in part or in whole, to serve Israel’s interest, then just say so already.
[/quote]

Yes, secret plots, secret ploys, my evil hidden agenda! Mwahahahaha.

And no, the war was launched in part and in whole to serve our interests as seen by the adminstration. Interests which included our influence in the ME. And you’ve not shown otherwise, just shown how Israel fits into our interests as seen by the adminstration.

What, you think we make strategic alliances out of charity?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Please note none of these reasons have anything to do with defending our country from imminent attack, and that’s what my question is about.
[/quote]

No, that’d be you shifting the goalposts. Your question was about national security, and now you want to define that, yet again by fiat, in not only the most narrow terms possible but as strategic goals which must bear fruit in the shortest timeframe possible

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I didn’t create a strawman. I said it seems as if you are giving the administration a benefit of the doubt that I find hard to believe you’d be giving if we weren’t talking about Israel. And you know what? It still seems that way.
[/quote]

Yes, that is a strawman. Yes, it is rather low-down to continue to argue by innuendo and insinuation as if you’d made a point. Unable to address my actual points, except to handwave them away by fiat, you then shift into pure ad hominem mode and ascribe an imaginary position to me and sling innuendo about how you can’t help but wonder, and boy gee whiz it seems to you as if…

Thank you for serving as an object lesson, but I fear that the point is lost on you. Chacter assasination of them thar zionists is just fine and dandy, because they’re dishonest and have secret dual-loyalties that they won’t admit to, and which cause them to betray their own country. Why character assasination of anglophiles or pro-UN folks is a faux pas is, I suppose anybody’s guess. But if someone supports Israel, boy howdy, it’s open season and time for a rousing game of “let’s pretend”.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Supporting Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia for what purposes?
[/quote]

Nevermind. I’d try to explain the concepst of strategic alliances, the balance of power, regional stability, and the protection of US interests, but as it’s not directly related to preventing an imminent attack, I’m sure you’ll handwave it away.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

There is no moral difference between “supporting” these countries and “supporting” our petroleum interests unless you can show that Iraq was on the verge of unleashing a major offensive against one or more of these nations.
[/quote]

I’m glad you feel secure in declaring morality-by-fiat, yet again. Such extreme confidence is certainly novel when it’s not in a teenager. But no, the concerns related to supporting the american economy, and strategic alliances in region’s where’re trying to have a sphere of influence are not more of less ‘moral’, no matter how stridently you pretend that your subjective opinion is somehow gospel.

You’ve also now diverged from plausible ideologies that members of the administration might have held, to merely ascribing moral-values to ideologies you don’t like. And, of course, using that to handwave away everything but your prefered conspiracy theory. (Still can’t explain how these zionist neocons somehow hijacked Rummy, Cheney, Bush, etc…, eh? )

[QUOTE=you with the face]

If you can’t do that, then this theory has far less weight than any current speculation about Israel.
[/quote]

Yes, if I can’t satisfy your hubristic subjective moral procolmations, then nobody could possibly have held such a belief, and then we should just go hog wild and ‘speculate’ about Israel.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

What’s bewildering to me is the fact that you notably leave out Israel from this list of allies we might have gone to war for,
[/quote]

My not mentioning the solitary country you seem to have any knowledge of that shares a strategic alliance with thh US was a plot, a ploy! How sneaky of me.

Or maybe you’re just bewildered.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
you include Saudi frickin’ Arabia, which, being one of furthest thing from a free country as you can get, is only our ally because of our shared oil interests.
[/quote]

When did I ever say anything about Saudi Arabia being our ally because they’re a “free country”? Nowhere, right?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Is launching a preemptive/preventive war for reasons other than self-defense acceptable, in your opinion?
[/quote]

Based on, again, you decree-by-fiat that the only valid self defense concerns are those that prevent an ‘imminent attack’, then no, your deliberate warping of the English language does not leave me with a choice I can agree to you in your odd little schema.

You refuse to see self defense in terms that are long-term, economic, strategic, etc… you handwave those away, and say that since they don’t fit into your personal subjective convictions, that nobody else could hold them, and that it’s time to start speculating like it’s going out of style.

Faced with such willful ignorance there’s really nothing I can do.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Why should you care that the president lied to us about WMDs, if you think they might have some secret but fully justifiable reasons for going to war?
[/quote]

Um… no. You’re the one who is talking about secret reasons that you’re inventing about a zionist takeover of the US government. I do care that Bush lied about the intel gathered about WMD, because I don’t believe my country’s leaders should freakin’ lie to get us into a war.

But you still seem unable to understand that even though I don’t agree with the reasons for war, I’m not going to do something as foolish as to pretend that nobody else could hold a differeing opinion than I do.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Different situation, but unfortunately, not sufficiently different to make one a more justifiable reason for preemptive war than the other. I’d actually rather us go to war for McDonald’s than to assert “our role as the sole superpower” because at least food is a universal good. Violent bravado is not.
[/quote]

Which proves that nobody could possibly honestly hold a different opinion.
Case closed. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I’m not ignorant of the ME nations, just surprised that someone would come up in here and say without irony that we have numerous allies in the ME that we might have gone to war for.
[/quote]

You just admitted that Saudi Arabia is an ally due to our need for oil. Now you profess confusion as to why one might fight a war to protect a strategic need for oil? Who do you think you’re fooling?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

But my surprise doesn’t stop there.
[/quote]

I am fairly certain that you are often surprised.

I think we’re done here. I’ve shown the ignorance and intellectual dishonesty your argument is based around, you’ve, well, you’re written a lot of words.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Because you are wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest, and arguing dishorably
[/quote]

You are straying into ad hominem territory and it’s a sad sight to behold. Nothing I’ve said warrants this. Nothing at all.

After you pretended that you didn’t know what other allies we had in the ME that we might support, and after you’d harped on only one of them for the entire thread, you then want to claim a ‘gotcha’ when I pointed out those other nations you were ignoring.

You’ve presented not one iota of evidence that we went to war to “support” Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Egypt, but you suggest this is a possible reason we invaded Iraq. At the same time you reject any and all evidence that we may have gone to war to serve Israel’s interest because of some illogical “motivations change through time” bullshit, and treat the very notion as if it’s some anti-Semitic conspiracy.

Can I suggest you think twice before you call someone willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest?

I never said that Israel wasn’t one of our allies.

But you go into hysterics when Israel is suggested as our motive for war, even though there is a lot more evidence of this than there is that we went to war to help SA, Egypt or Kuwait. Figure that.

Irrelevant. We are not discussing my geoplotical philosophy, but whether or not you pretending that your bluster and bullshit about the only possible right way to do things means that nobody else coudld possibly hold a differing opinion without there being some nebulous “Israel connection.”

You have a problem with me making judgements “by fiat” and complained when I said that starting wars for reasons other than our national security is not acceptable, yet you won’t state whether you disagree that preemptive war for any reason other than self-defense is justified. This is an indication that you know of what you speak when you talk about dishonorable arguing.

What on earth are you going on about? I have no desire to defend the adminstration, because I don’t agree with their policies on Iraq. That doesn’t mean that you get to go hog wild and play games of insinuation and innuendo.

I haven’t played any games, that’s the thing. My position is that I object to knee-jerk behavior whenever the Israel question is raised. I don’t appreciate attempts to silence rational debate with accusations of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories, and I’m extremely unimpressed with folks who are inconsistent in their positions on the war. When the target of speculation is Israel, the debate should be held to the same level of scrutinity and objectivity as it when we are talking about Halliburton and oil. I don’t care whether Israel is your sacred cow. Now is not the time to let emotion override reason.

know you can’t grok why someone might argue against baseless and intellectually dishonest assertions about a government, and still oppose that government’s actions.

Here you go again with the “some might argue” card.

Why might someone oppose many of an administration’s actions, but still require epistemologically valid and intellectually honest arguments if claims are being made about that administration?

You’re claiming that the administration may have gone to war to support our numerous allies in the region, including Egypt of all places. Where were your requirements when you made this claim?

And no, the war was launched in part and in whole to serve our interests as seen by the adminstration. Interests which included our influence in the ME. And you’ve not shown otherwise, just shown how Israel fits into our interests as seen by the adminstration.

There’s evidence that it fits into the interests of officials in the Department of Defense and the OSP who are responsible for the deception that got us into war. But you refuse to acknowledge this and insist that this evidence is meaningless because “motivations change over time”.

What, you think we make strategic alliances out of charity?

No I don’t. Next question.

No, that’d be you shifting the goalposts. Your question was about national security, and now you want to define that, yet again by fiat, in not only the most narrow terms possible but as strategic goals which must bear fruit in the shortest timeframe possible

But you still won’t answer my question about what you believe to be acceptable basis for preemptive war.

Based on, again, you decree-by-fiat that the only valid self defense concerns are those that prevent an ‘imminent attack’, then no, your deliberate warping of the English language does not leave me with a choice I can agree to you in your odd little schema.

Gosh, I guess I’m just soooo crazy for saying that war should only be about self-defense. Nevermind that the UN kinda sorta agrees with me. Nevermind that the same principal applies to allowable exceptions for murder. ywtf is making decrees by fiat. Therefore, let’s ignore everything that she is saying.

You refuse to see self defense in terms that are long-term, economic, strategic, etc… you handwave those away, and say that since they don’t fit into your personal subjective convictions, that nobody else could hold them, and that it’s time to start speculating like it’s going out of style.

Wow, it’s amazing that you read all of that into my “unacceptable” characterization. Funny thing about it is that you should be agreeing with me, going by what you’ve stated in the past. You know, in threads in which Israel wasn’t the subject of debate. Let’s take a look at some of these "decrees-by-fiat our friend FinnAgain has pleasured us with in more objective times.

Exhibit A

@Finn

Yes you brain-stem functioning Fox News drone. We’re talking Principle, as in, killing and suffering is to be avoided whenever possible. As in, making things worse than they were when we started because we’re acting like idealogues (look in the mirror schnookums) is wrong.

Sounds like someone had a bad case of the “by fiats”!

Exibit B

@Finn

Defending yourself against a genocidal regime bent on global conquest? Acceptable.
Starting an unprovoked war of agression against a defanged dictator who writes romance novels… and starting this war in such a manner that it destabilizes the country and perhaps the entire region and leads to greater death and pain in the future? Not acceptable

Sounds like two decrees-by-fiat to me!

Exhibit C

@Finn

See, having a good goal does not excuse the crimes commited along the way. We are not Medici Princes. This is how one can say that Sadaam should have been taken out, but that we went about it wrong. This is how one can say that Hitler had to be stopped, but maybe we made mistakes during the course of the war. This is life. It’s messy, it doesn’t always make sense, and sometimes it seems downright counter-intuitive.

Yes, it does seem downright counter-intuitive. But maybe I shouldn’t take your word for it, since this is a decree-by-fiat and decree-by-fiats are automatic grounds for having your argument dismissed, according to the FinnAgain participating in this discussion. And who says that having a good goal is a poor excuse for commiting crimes, anyway? That’s another decree-by-fiat! And who says we’re committing crimes? That’s just YOUR opinion!

Exhibit D

@Finn

And this doesn’t disturb you? That the administration had some secret agenda that even now isn’t public knowledge?

You talk about a secret agenda and implore someone to consider why the idea of such is disturbing. Seems to me that someone who would find such a idea disturbing would welcome all attempts to delve into the possible “secret agendas” and bring out the truth of the matter.

But you don’t welcome it. Not when the discussion strays too close to home. You squash debate with unfounded insinuations and ad hominem. You fault me for making the same type of assertions that you’ve made in discussions about the war, while refusing to answer the questions I’ve posed to you. It’s ridiculous, Finn. You’re exactly the type of poster I had in mind when I ventured into this thread. I would regret it, but it’s always amusing to see the fascinating ideas you come out with when you lose your ability to reason.

[you_with_the_face]

And because digging up old shit is so much fun, let’s go back to this:

@ywtf

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?

@FinnAgain

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.

Here you go.

@FinnAgain

Now, as for reasons why we might’ve chosen Iraq over Iran?
To start with we had Chalabi feeding us phoney intel that may’ve made it seem that invading Iraq would be the easier move.

**And yes, oil does play a role.(**remember the coup we helped orchestrate in Venezuala? Remember the reason why Bush is so buddy-buddy with Prince Bandar?) But I don’t think it’s the only role. I’d wager that the billions in no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton also factored into the deal, as did a chance to 'get the man who tried to kill bush’s daddy

(bolding mine)

Now wouldja look at that. Uncompelling arguments all over the place. Didn’t bother backing any of it up. Such easy, politically correct targets, too: oil and Halliburton. Our old favorite enemies.

Let’s dissect your logic: oil apparently is a likely motive because Bush is friends with “Bandar Bush” (OMG!!!1), and Halliburton is a likely suspect because…well you didn’t even bother refering to anything to support that charge because it’s apparently so obvious (no bid contracts and Cheney, duh!). And then you finish up with the theory of all theories: “Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his wronged father” (because we all know Texans put pride and family loyalty above everything, including the best interests of the country…might as well call them quasi-traitorous).

[FinnAgain]

@you with the face

But you don’t welcome it. Not when the discussion strays too close to home. You squash debate with unfounded insinuations and ad hominem.

Sorry, naked hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. First, you are the one who not only has built your entire case on insinuation and ad hominem, but have been using the same on me for msot of this thread. Just look at your innuendo and lies that Israel is somehow my ‘sacred cow’, that my positions change when Israel is brought up, etc, etc, etc.

By the way, I notice you’ve totally ignored the obligation of retracting your ignorant posturing with regard to PNAC membership.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
You are straying into ad hominem territory and it’s a sad sight to behold.
[/quote]

1. No, I’m not. Simply describing the massive dishonesty of your argument. I clarify what other nations we support in the ME, after you feign ignorance, and then you use that as some silly ‘gotcha’.
2. And yes, I suppose it would be a sad sight, as silly innuendo and slander is your bag.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

You’ve presented not one iota of evidence that we went to war to “support” Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Egypt,
[/quote]

I was under the impression that you’ve been reading the news the last several years, and had heard discussion of the importance of regional stability and removing Saddam’s influence. I was wrong, again like your silly claims about PNAC members, you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.

Ring any bells?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

At the same time you reject any and all evidence that we may have gone to war to serve Israel’s interest because of some illogical “motivations change through time” bullshit
[/quote]

:rolleyes:
Yes, stating that people’s opinions and beliefs change over time is illogical and bullshit. Kay.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

But you go into hysterics when Israel is suggested as our motive for war, even though there is a lot more evidence of this than there is that we went to war to help SA, Egypt or Kuwait. Figure that.
[/quote]

No, you’re either lying, or simply ignorant, yet again, of an issue you’re talking about. And you really should stop pretending that you have any “evidence” of anything.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

You have a problem with me making judgements “by fiat” and complained when I said that starting wars for reasons other than our national security is not acceptable, yet you won’t state whether you disagree that preemptive war for any reason other than self-defense is justified.
[/quote]

No, it’s an indication that yet again you’ve let your fantasy life run away with you. Your sad, sad little games of ‘gotcha’ are irrelevant, as I’ve already directly refused to make this a discussion about my beliefs and politics. And yet again you dishonestly ignore this and pretend that you’ve made some sort of point.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I haven’t played any games, that’s the thing. My position is that I object to knee-jerk behavior whenever the Israel question is raised.
[/quote]

Good then you’ll stop jerking your knee so furiously. Glad we’re agreed.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I don’t appreciate attempts to silence rational debate with accusations of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories,
[/quote]

Luckily you’ve offered precious little that’s rational, have indeed suggested that there’s some sort of hidden pro-Zionist conspiracy, ignored explaining how this conspiracy got one over on Rummy, Cheney, Bush, etc…

[QUOTE=you with the face]

and I’m extremely unimpressed with folks who are inconsistent in their positions on the war.
[/quote]

Luckily, if you’re talking about me, you’re simply lying.
And I’d ask you to stop lying like that.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

When the target of speculation is Israel, the debate should be held to the same level of scrutinity and objectivity as it when we are talking about Halliburton and oil.
[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why your silly games of proof-by-innuendo and denial-of-alternate-views-via-fiat are laughable and two faced.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I don’t care whether Israel is your sacred cow.
[/quote]

Luckily enough it isn’t, and you are again reduced to ad hominem fallacies and strawmen to prop up your argument.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

You’re claiming that the administration may have gone to war to support our numerous allies in the region, including Egypt of all places. Where were your requirements when you made this claim?
[/quote]

Just because you’re ignorant, and don’t care to learn before spouting off, doesn’t mean that I’ve somehow commited any breaches of proper epistemology. Why you are again baffled, by the way, that Egypt is a nation we’ve got a strategic alliance with is par for the course. Something tells me you haven’t read anything about that, either.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

There’s evidence that it fits into the interests of officials in the Department of Defense and the OSP who are responsible for the deception that got us into war.
[/quote]

As do many nations in the region which we use for our own ends. Feel free to continue to ignore this. You evidently really do think that alliances are made out of charity.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

But you still won’t answer my question about what you believe to be acceptable basis for preemptive war.
[/quote]

I also won’t answer you if you want to know my shoe size or favorite sexual position. You seem not to understand, I’d wager because you choose not to. I’ll try to explain it again, but I’d imagine you’ll remain wilfully ignorant; the argument is over what the administration’s motivations were, and what their strategic concerns were. Not what my politics are.

Quit it with this silly red herring bullshit, eh?

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Gosh, I guess I’m just soooo crazy for saying that war should only be about self-defense. Nevermind that the UN kinda sorta agrees with me. Nevermind that the same principal applies to allowable exceptions for murder. ywtf is making decrees by fiat. Therefore, let’s ignore everything that she is saying.
[/quote]

Add some more dishonest and dishonorable debate from you, this is getting to be a pattern. The point is not that you’ve got your own morals, but that you have, again and again, when presented with reasons that the Administration used to justify war, handwaved them away by fiat as they were “unnacaptable” in your little subjective fiefdom.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Wow, it’s amazing that you read all of that into my “unacceptable” characterization.
[/quote]

Yeah… how very odd it is that you handwave away someone’s stated goals, philosophy, and motivations as “unnaceptable” and then spin conspiracy theories our of innuendo and insinuation. I should just go with the flow, eh? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Funny thing about it is that you should be agreeing with me, going by what you’ve stated in the past.
[/quote]

Nope, sorry. Just because I oppose the war doesn’t mean that I check epistemology at the door and begin a rousing game of let’s-pretend.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Let’s take a look at some of these "decrees-by-fiat our friend FinnAgain has pleasured us with in more objective times.
[/quote]

I haven’t made decrees that since the administration’s views have differed from my own, that their views were ‘unnaceptable’ and we had to posit alternate reasons for what they did.

But please continue to argue dishonestly if you need to.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Sounds like someone had a bad case of the “by fiats”!
[/quote]

Please explain how opposing the war and its justifications means that I declared, by fiat, that the administration’s views were not just something I disagreed with, but cause for inventing secret agendas and dual-loyalties.

The same goes for the rest of your attempts at gotchas. You are unable to understand how one could oppose the war, and its justifications, but still not engage in games of let’s-pretend. I can’t help you.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Yes, it does seem downright counter-intuitive. But maybe I shouldn’t take your word for it, since this is a decree-by-fiat and decree-by-fiats are automatic grounds for having your argument dismissed, according to the FinnAgain participating in this discussion.
[/quote]

Liar. Quote anywhere that I’ve said that.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

You talk about a secret agenda and implore someone to consider why the idea of such is disturbing. Seems to me that someone who would find such a idea disturbing would welcome all attempts to delve into the possible “secret agendas” and bring out the truth of the matter.
[/quote]

Man, you’re really having problems here.
I’ve already gone on record as disagreeing with much of the administration’s position, and not believing that we got the full truth.

That you can’t hold that in your mind at the same time as being able to understand that one’s ‘delving’ has to be along the lines of proper epistemology isn’t my fault, and I really don’t have the energy to try to educate you anymore. Your willful ignorance wins.

@you with the face

You fault me for making the same type of assertions that you’ve made in discussions about the war, while refusing to answer the questions I’ve posed to you. It’s ridiculous, Finn.

No, you’re lying again. I fault you for making assertions that are based on innuendo and insinuation. You are, yet again, dishonestly pretending that I hold a position I do not so you’ve got a comfy strawman to fight against.

And yes, I refuse to answer your questions, and I’ve already explained why. And yet you pretend, with massive dishonesty, that I’ve somehow done anything wrong by not discussing my positions when the discussion is about the administration’s positions.

It is indeed ridiculous that you pitch such a fit when I refuse to play with your red herring.

[FinnAgain]

This just gets more and more absurd with each go-round.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Now wouldja look at that. Uncompelling arguments all over the place.
[/quote]

Many things are uncompelling to someone who doesn’t read the news.
Bush has already publically stated that oil is a concern with regard to our invasion of Iraq. Billions of no-bid dollars were allocated before the war was even begun, showing that reconstruction was part and parcel of the planning process.

You also deliberately ignored my main statements:

@me

To be honest, it’s hard for me to respond as, quite frankly, I’m still in the dark as to the real reason we invaded Iraq.
[snip]
So, yeah, I suppose I end this post as puzzled as when I began. I still don’t buy the official reasons for Iraq, so it’s very hard for me to weigh it again Iran. For all I know Bush chose to invade Iraq becaue of a dream he had.

When asked for hypotheses about differences between Iran and Iraq and why we went to war with one and not the other, I offered a few, with explicit caveats, that you purposefully and dishonestly ignored, stating that I was simply offering up possibilities.

This thread, on the other hand, is asking if certain claims were “a serious agenda by US Neo-cons & Israel?”

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Let’s dissect your logic: oil apparently is a likely motive because Bush is friends with “Bandar Bush” (OMG!!!1),
[/quote]

You really, really shouldn’t try to play with logic, it doesn’t seem to end up well. You either do not understand my logic, or you do, and you’re lying.

Oil is a likely motive because, as evinced by our strategic interests all over the world, and by Bush’s specific and public statement that we needed to prevent oil revenue from going to America’s enemies, oil is an interst of our government. Our relationship with Prince Bandar and Saudi Arabia, which you handwaved away just a few posts ago, shows the impact that oil has on our foreign policy. As does the attempted coup in Venezuala.

But you’d also notice, were you not arguing dishonorably and with massive intellectual dishonesty, that I was arguing pure hypotheticals (not theories as you dishonestly claim), and specifically said in two seperate places that I didn’t have any firm conclusions and wasn’t claiming to know any ‘real reasons’.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

and Halliburton is a likely suspect because…well you didn’t even bother refering to anything to support that charge because it’s apparently so obvious (no bid contracts and Cheney, duh!).
[/quote]

Yes, it is obvious, and I expect people to do the reading required to talk about a subject. Reconstruction was a huge concern in our planning process, opportunity for reconstruction only went to companies based in nations which we viewed as helping us. Directly enriching our allied companies is hardly something that is even up for debate. We did it, it’s a matter of public record. Whether it was a side benefit or a prime motivation isn’t something I’d speak to.

[QUOTE=you with the face]

And then you finish up with the theory of all theories: “Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his wronged father” (because we all know Texans put pride and family loyalty above everything, including the best interests of the country…might as well call them quasi-traitorous).
[/QUOTE]

I take it that you’re totally unaware of Bush’s quote about getting the man who tried to kill his dad? Totally ignorant, right?

It has nothing to do with “Texans”, but it’s good to see that yet again you resort to an absurd strawman. It, does, however, have something to do with Bush’s own words.

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

It seems that, more and more, your entire position is one of militant willful ignorance. Good show.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Sorry, naked hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. First, you are the one who not only has built your entire case on insinuation and ad hominem, but have been using the same on me for msot of this thread.
[/quote]

Whatever, dude. It’s clear you have no idea what my position in this thread is because you are demonstrating rather beautifully all that I’m against. Read my first post in this thread.

Just look at your innuendo and lies that Israel is somehow my ‘sacred cow’, that my positions change when Israel is brought up, etc, etc, etc.

Israel is your sacred cow. This isn’t innuendo. This is fact. Everytime anyone so much as breaths the “I” word in the same sentence as the war, you go apeshit. And yes, your positions are inconsistent depending on what’s being discussed. Your posting history clearly demonstrates this. It’s like you are so steeped in bias that you become blind to reason.

By the way, I notice you’ve totally ignored the obligation of retracting your ignorant posturing with regard to PNAC membership.

So Cheney and Rummy are also PNAC dickwads. What exactly does this prove again?

I clarify what other nations we support in the ME, after you feign ignorance, and then you use that as some silly ‘gotcha’.

I didn’t feign ignorance, I simply remarked upon your interesting use of the word “numerous” in describing our ME allies.

I was under the impression that you’ve been reading the news the last several years, and had heard discussion of the importance of regional stability and removing Saddam’s influence.

This is so freaking ridiculous. Are you really trying to tell me that we invaded Iraq to improve the stabilitity of the ME? Do you believe this, or is this more of your “some people would argue” schitck. Check old threads and watch yourself argue rather passionately and sometimes rabidly against people making that very same claim. And then come back and talk to me about hypocrisy. If you need some links, they’re in my previous two posts.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

I take it that you’re totally unaware of Bush’s quote about getting the man who tried to kill his dad? Totally ignorant, right?

It has nothing to do with “Texans”, but it’s good to see that yet again you resort to an absurd strawman. It, does, however, have something to do with Bush’s own words.

[/QUOTE]

But-but motivations change, right? Sure they do. If you wanna be consistent and all.

Bush is a Texan. Ergo, you’re making innuendo and insinuations about Texans. Notice how nobody ever says this kind of stuff about Condi Rice and Rummy. No, you pick on Bush because he’s a macho cowboy-wannabe from Texas. It’s all there, man. It’s all there.

::sets tin-foil hat at a rakish angle::

[tomndebb]

TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

Everyone back off.

I suspect that most of the acrimony of the last page or so could have been avoided had anyone attempted to discern what the other poster had actually intended rather than simply saving up quotes to hurl (in or out of muddled context) in the next round of “Gotcha!” (Or, in this case, “Gotcha Ya!”)

Everyone pick a specifc position and post it with the appropriate references and appeals to logic. You are free to review, in your own mind, the traps or trips or misunderstandings you have encountered in this thread, to date, but you may not refer back to the “errors” of your opponents.

No one is to remark on the quality of intelligence, logic, or honesty of another poster.

If you can’t do that, then simply walk away from the thread.

(I’m not sure whether I need to go take a course in kindergarten behavioral dynamics or whether I can claim a certificate based on battle experience.)

Regardless whether you are capable of starting over, or not, you will refrain from any further personal observations.

[ /Moderating ]

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No one is to remark on the quality of intelligence, logic, or honesty of another poster.
[/QUOTE]

Can we have a ruling on accusations of anti-Semitism, implied or explicit?

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Everyone pick a specifc position and post it with the appropriate references and appeals to logic.
[/QUOTE]

Gladly.

I will repeat my position for those who may have gotten distracted.

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.

Looking at this paragraph, I have to wonder where all the controversy is.

[mks57]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
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.

[/QUOTE]

In a rational world, I might agree with you. In the world in which I live, my thinking is colored by a lifetime of dealing with people who can always be relied on to supply a Jewish conspiracy theory to explain any news event or problem. I’ve met many people who can explain any problem by using some combination of “the Communists” and “the Jews”. If they don’t have any real Jews to blame, they’ll accuse their enemies of being crypto-Jews.

[Lemur866]

So, the question I have is:

The Bush administration cronies and fellow travellers that were members of PNAC and in favor of invading Iraq and close relations with Israel and using American military force to promote “democracy” and are Jewish are suspected of betraying America to benefit Israel.

The Bush administration cronies and fellow travellers that were members of PNAC and in favor of invading Iraq and close relations with Israel and using American military force to promote “democracy” and are not Jewish are not suspected of betraying America to benefit Israel.

Why is that?

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Can we have a ruling on accusations of anti-Semitism, implied or explicit?
[/QUOTE]
For the purposes of this thread, anyone who wishes to make a claim of anti-semitism should do it explicitly and then support their accusation with a cogently laid out defense of their position. (The spirit of December is not a good muse for this Forum.)

(The previous rules were intended for this thread, only. My cousin Sisyphus has suggested that controlling this mob in every thread, unlike herding cats, is probably not a good effort to pursue. I just figured that this thread had a tiny bit of potential substance that was seriously hijacked by so many posters taking (and giving) personal offense in place of discussing the issue.)