|
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
To the contrary, invading Iraq to "right the wrong" of harboring terrorists and having chemical weapons (we knew there were no nukes) is narrow, given the huge risks and costs of invading. What made the risks and costs worth while (in the eyes of the Bush administration) was the biggest strategic prize on earth: energy security. Sadaam was a threat to the Gulf in general and an impediment to the US securing its long-term oil requirements (i.e. its economic future). What could be broader?
bebeinpa (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Many of the old-school neo-cons were former leftists who saw the degradation of communism and socialism and felt that these systems had to be fought vigorously. They saw Israel as a democratic bulwark against Soviet meddling in the region-not because they were religious.
bebeinpa (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Bush used the pretext of terrorism for regime change? First of all, Hussein did harbor terrorists, had used WMD'S, Had invaded other countries,and was in breach of SC resolutions. The U.S. could have played the same cynical game as Russia, China and France and just ignored Hussein's madness and kept buying Iraqi oil. Since you posted, China has become the first to sign an oil deal with Iraq. I know Israel didn't want us to go to war-but your arguments for the reasons why we did are very narrow.
itsareligionofpeace (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes, everyone who isn't an idiot understands that the Jewish Neo Conservatives and the Israeli lobby pushed through this ridiculous war in Iraq - anyone think there were Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam was Hitler, Iraq was behind 9/11?Who's the Jewish Neo Con that people don't like the most?My pick is David Frum - the Canadian Jewish Neo Con that gets brought out to slander, do vicious ad hominem attacks on any Conservatives who dare oppose the Neo COn war agenda.
usy4u (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
watch "the arrivals"and watch oil and blood on youtube
jimiydoorshamelech (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
iraq war wasnt for israelPublished on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 by Inter Press ServiceIsrael Warned US Not to Invade Iraq after 9/11by Gareth PorterWASHINGTON - Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
To be clear, I'm not making a case for or against the pro-Israel lobby. My argument is that US foreign policy in the Middle East is animated more by its material interests in energy supplies than by the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby. Of course, the interests of Israel and the US largely overlap.
TOREMJ (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, attacking Iran would be complete madness. You are hardly making the case in favour of this lobby by pushing this argument. That they advocate mad policies in defense of Israel is not uncommon. Luckily USA lawmakers isn't as just as mad as the lobby, only almost.
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"How is it possible..." Its not. That's how.Israel is not the tail wagging the USA dog. Remember, they wanted to preemptively attack Iran. They asked our permission. We said no. And Israel obeyed. They are an important ally in the most strategically important region in the world (because of its energy resources). The world is a more complex place than the so-called "anti-zionist" crowd understands.
etsneroj (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The contention that the US invaded Iraq to protect Israel, contrary to its interests, is naive. US posture towards Iraq has always been about oil. Iraq sits on the choke point of the world economy. Bush used the threat of terrorism as a pretext for regime change in hopes of guarantying long-term access (on favored terms) to the 2d largest oil reserves in the world. France, China & Russia (our main rivals for middle eastern oil) didn't support the war for that very reason. |
