[Article]War was for Israel!

sovtek

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
I remember a time when we'ze be called conspiracy nuts/anti-semites for even suggesting this.

Sovtek, do you believe the article? Cause just posting links isn't really tolerated as far as i know in here.

As for myself, I believe it was a partial reason, but the resources in Iraq, and the desire to crush an Arab nation were the major reasons. But then thats just me.

gandalf

As Klaz said posting articles without expressing your own opinion is verboten.

Edit that post with your views by this evening or I will delete this thread. If you keep posting links with no opinions then I will ban you.

Gandalf.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
Sovtek, do you believe the article? Cause just posting links isn't really tolerated as far as i know in here.

Jesus Menora!
Ummm sorry forgot to do that.

As for myself, I believe it was a partial reason, but the resources in Iraq, and the desire to crush an Arab nation were the major reasons. But then thats just me.

I agree with those motives and evidence suggests it quite strongly.
As for this being the single solitary motive, no I don't think that it is the ONLY reason.
The PNAC doccy refered to it directly (IIRC) and some members of the Bush regime refered to the support for "terrorists" Saddam had given to the likes of Palestinian groups as justification.

Ummm sorry forgot to do that

Heh, it was an interesting article to read, so i didn't mind. Just curious abt your views.

mike65

I thought war was about oil

I thought the war was about Islam

I thought the war was about Halliburton

I thought the war was about 9/11

I thought the war was about unfinnished business

I thought the war was about....etc.

Mike.

dathi1

I thought the war was about....etc.

Apparently they said it was about WMD....

mike65

Originally posted by dathi1
Apparently they said it was about WMD....

Oh yeah, I knew I'd forgotten at least one reason!

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Just throwing a curve ball at this whole thing, why wouldn't the defense of Israel be valid? They are a US ally aren't they. Just the same as the US could invade Iceland if it posed a threat to any of their NATO allies.

I think the point there would be that in the absence of WMDs, and even a military as capable as it was made out to be.....Iraq posed no direct threat to Israel.

Sure, there was animosity, but there was no threat.

And the argument that the US could invade Iceland if it posed a threat is very carefully worded. The US could invade Iceland if it decided that it had nothing better to do. It could invade Iceland for any number of reasons. The question is whether or not such a posing of a threat would constitute a valid reason.

Normally, a clear and present threat would constitute some form of a valid reason, albeit one which is not accepted by everyone. A possible, future, not-fully-quantifiable-right-now sort of threat is generally accepted as insufficient reason.
If the US did use Israel as a reason, it was more likely to have been strategic-reasoning based, rather than threat-based. Strategically, taking out Iraq and reinforcing US presence in the region yadda yadda should make Israel more secure. However, invasions for strategic reasons in the absence of clear and present threats are generally not considered to be valid or good reasons. They would generally rank alongside imperialism, expansionism, and the like in terms of their acceptability.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.