Little Hoofikins wrote:
yes, yes, the great zionist conspiracy.
Who mentioned zionism? Not me. You can try for the inferential smear by trotting out the 'great zionist conspiracy' disdain, but it isn't going work on me, sorry.
I said, just as others have said at many times and in many places, that the Jewish lobby in the US exerts disproportionate influence upon the US political scene.
the disdain is there because this is a spin of "the great zionist conspiracy" and a fallacy. when has the "Jewish lobby exerted disproportionate influence?" and disproportionate to whom? certainly not any other notable minority group. if you mean pro-israeli, those are not all jews. a lot of them are cold war holdovers. a big chunk are also those who remember the OPEC embargo of the 70s.
it sounds nice, but it is patently untrue.
Then why do so many political commentators comment upon it? You're going to try and dismiss them with the 'zionist conspiracy loony' lable too?
you will have to go down a list of commentators, but apart from pat buchanan, currently they do so because the arabs have become the cause celebre of the relativistic left-- shifting the jews oddly enough, to the right. the arab world has sent 2 waves of immigration to the US in the latter half of this century. they have gained power in the US political and educational scene in the last 10 years.
now, commentators can say "we just want to help the jews" because of our jews, but this doesn't make them correct. we aided israel for the reasons i pointed out above: a check on communism, an honest western ideology, and a commitment to the state which the UN incepted. we also aided them because of our jews, but not to the extent you seem to think.
I'm not sure you can rationally lable Israel a 'functioning' nation in any meaningful way, nor is it particularly democratic.
The place is an economic and political basket case, with far too many special interest groups weilding undue power over the destiny of the entire country.
you base this on.... ?
their parlimentary system and constitution is one of the best in the world. at present, they have realized that after 60 years of undeserved open season on jews and 30 months of infitada after barak gave the PLO the deal of the century, a hard line is required. that is reality. it is not a political basket case any more than denmark (with multiple parties) or the US (with multiple PACs)
dude. what definition of "sovereign" do you use?
The conventional definition. I'll say it again: Iraq is a sovereign nation. what
makes you say it isn't? It's recognised as one by the UN.
the soverign nation is such a weak argument. it fails on 4 grounds:
1. the conventional definition of "sovereign" as applied to states is: "self-governing or independent." it goes to the state. not the leader. iraq is a totalitarian tyranny maintained by terror, FEAR
, oppression, extermination, and deprivation of the populace. this is not rule by the state. it is rule by 1 man. you are going to have to go a long way to show that an insane and immoral sovereign = sovereign state as contemplated by the UN.
2. hussein's iraq is a rogue nation in violation of every UN sanction sent their way for the past 13 years-- including the ones which ceased fire to the last war. blix even admitted this today! again, the fact the UN recognizes the country doesn't mean it recognizes a lifetime rule for saddam hussein. it does mean there would be bitching about the US trying to make iraq its 51st state, but that's never been the goal.
3. it assumes the UN an objectively neutral or moral institution. it's not. i.e. that the U.N. is acts as a judge where the nations of the world put aside their petty self-interest and do whatever is in the best interests of humanity. they don't.
4. it overlooks the moral heart of the matter:
* Is Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? yes
* Is it a proven threat to its neighbors? yes
* Is it a proven threat to its own people? yes
* Is it a proven threat to our allies? yes
* Is it willing to export terrorism abroad? yes
* Is it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? yes
* Is it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? yes
* Would Saddam's people be better off without him? yes
* Would we and our allies be better off without him? yes
* Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? yes
* Would getting rid of him make it less likely that another 9/11 repeats? yes
finally, it also overlooks article 51 which gives a right to defense in the case of threat.
Oh, how convinient is that? Bush needs an excuse and one suddenly appears. Just like the previous bundles of 'evidence', you'll have to excuse me if I wait for this latest 'revelation' to be confirmed before leaping for the machine gun and running off to sort Saddam out.
seriously, where do you live? this is not some radical notion. the newest evidence is from spain directly tieing hussein to al quaeda as reported in the guardian
. if there is a more anti-american rag out there, i can't think of it, can you?
nevertheless...this is a war on terror. hussein's ties to terror have been proven time and time again. his domestic terror has been proven time and time again. by both sides
of the political spectrum. he also sits smack dab in the middle of saudi, iran, pakistan, and syria. the bad boys on the block. he trades oil with syria and trains their terrorists. taking him out is an integral part in re-shaping the middle east.
why do we do it now? because the WTC and pentagon were bombed on 9/11 & it finally became worth the cost to do so.
That may all be true (and if it is then it is due largely to the efforts of the Bush Administration), but the point I made was that Bush has no legal mandate from the UN or previous UN resolutions.
Do *try* and reply to the point, won't you?[/quote]
*hearty chuckle*. what
part of "Hussein has been in flagrant violation of the resolutions which put the cease-fire into effect 12 years ago. even blix argues this" did you fail to grasp?
So what you're saying is that even if Iraq weren't involved, it's a candidate for being invaded because it happens to *neighbour* countries that *have* supported terrorism in the past?! Doesn't that strike you as being at least a *slightly* screwy way to view the world and other countries in it? Ar you going to cheer the invasion of Brunei or Singapore because they happen to be next to Indonesia?!
nope. not screwy at all. iraq IS involved in terrorism. he IS involved in arms trafficking. he IS a threat and conduit for these guys to work together. he IS integral to defeating the war on terror. think of it this way: in WWII, the "axis" powers had 3 primary countries. there were 2 main threatres of battle. the war is on terror. hussein is on the away team. iraq is a theatre of battle.
2. economics -- the only opposition from the UN is because of money and oil, specifically french, russian, and german oil/arms deals.
If you'd been listening to the outside world you'd see that quite a few countries (including France and Russia) have *clearly* stated they will not attack Iraq to remove Saddam (a stated goal of the Bush admin and not authorised under *any* UN resolution) nor will they join an attack to remove proscribed weapons until such time as a new UN resolution instructs it.
BTW, can you provide any pointers to German arms or oil deals with Iraq?
yes, but they objected clearly
because of economics! just like i said. here ya go... you remember that 12,000 page report which was heavily redacted? it showed germany as being iraq's #1 arms supplier: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1 ... _A,00.html
they've also got more than a few guys running side-games: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true
as well as terror cells: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articled ... icleid=437
as for oil deals, germany is not a direct oil player. however, they have unequivocally allied themselves with france and russia whose deals with total fina elf and lukoil now face jeopardy. http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins021103.asp
3. humanitarian -- it is the right thing to do. call me wacky, but feeding dissenters to wild dogs while they are alive or stuffing them into plastic machines or dripping acid on their genitalia ain't nice. neither is starving the people deliberately.
So why not do it ten years ago?
the world is not motivated by altruism. 12 years ago, our goal was to get him out of kuwait to ensure a lower price of oil. there was also no threat to us but economic. at that time, old europe agreed. so, we ran him out and turned it over to the UN. look how well that has gone.
a bad bad argument you make:
"ooh, we didn't take him out 10 years ago! let's let him go free now!"