How Is Anti-Semitism/Anti-Zionism Useful?

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Being in a Nation at the invitation of the government is normally how that works. Which nation is it where the people are polled to see if they want us?

Yes, I understand that. It was all perfectly legal and proper, it just wasn't a very wise thing to do if you're looking to win goodwill amongst the average man on the street.

You opinion that the sanctions were a bad idea is just THAT ... your opinion. Do they just not teach the actual, fact-based chain of events that led the First Gulf War, or what?

It's an opinion that's based on reason. Iraq was never a threat to the US, sanctions never cause a people to rise up against their dictator, and they punish ordinary citizens, a good number of whom detested Saddam. Our ambassador also informed Saddam that any quarrel amongst two Arab nations about a border dispute would not be any concern to the US government.

Critics of the sanctions say that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, [2] although certain skeptics claim the numbers to be less. [3] [4][5] UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[6] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it," though she later rued the comment as "stupid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

There was never any plan at that time to remove Saddam from power.

Yes, which proves my point that he was not a genuine threat to the US. If he was, he would have been history in the first war.

That "Bush didn't finish the job" crap stinks from 1991 to here. The left has ignored the facts in favor of partisan hackery.

I am not arguing a "Bush Sr. didn't finish the job". I am arguing that it was a job that the US should not have undertaken in the first place. I do agree though, that "Bush didn't finish the job" is partisan baloney, since the same people would have criticized any invasion that followed.

 

[William Joyce]

In this instance, looks like Hawk makes a pretty good argument AGAINTS us pouring mega-bucks into Israel, but WHAT is it, that causes us to do it anyway?

There MUST be an "up side", or we wouldn't be doing it, would we?

The "up side" is that Jews get funding for an ethno-nationalist project in the Middle East. Everything else is a downside. We lose billions, yea trillions in tax dollars, both directly and through the wars we're fighting on their behalf. And lives. White gentiles suffer. Arabs suffer. Lebanese suffer. EVERYONE BUT JEWS suffers.

The use of "anti-Semitism" is that it's a mindset that properly directs non-Jews to awareness of the myriad ways in which Jewish pursuit of their own group interests works to the social, cultural, financial and biological detriment of competing groups.

Example: an "anti-Semitic" politician would work to block a Jew from becoming head of Homeland Security, because he'd realize that his own ethnic interests aren't served by that. An "anti-Semitic" consumer would tend to doubt the Jewish jeweler about the value of the necklace.

And so on. All pefectly rational, within bounds.

For a Jew, of course, "anti-Islamicism" would be a rational response. But nobody cares about that, now do they?

 

[Gunny]

Yes, I understand that. It was all perfectly legal and proper, it just wasn't a very wise thing to do if you're looking to win goodwill amongst the average man on the street.

We weren't looking for "good will." We were looking for a place to set up an air base.

It's an opinion that's based on reason. Iraq was never a threat to the US, sanctions never cause a people to rise up against their dictator, and they punish ordinary citizens, a good number of whom detested Saddam. Our ambassador also informed Saddam that any quarrel amongst two Arab nations about a border dispute would not be any concern to the US government.

Right. Applying something said when Saddam was at war with Iran to Saddam invading Kuwait is rather dishonest.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Wikipedia sucks as a credible source of info; likewise, you can hardly call UNICEF unbiased.



Yes, which proves my point that he was not a genuine threat to the US. If he was, he would have been history in the first war.

You're confusing two wars. I was speaking of the First Gulf War. The fact Saddam was or was not a threat to the US is irrelevant.

As it applies to the current war and/or reasoning for removing Saddam from power ... anyone cheering on terrorists and funding terrorists is a threat by any means I was every taught to use in assessing one.

You folks who take this stance redefined "threat to the US" after the fact, just as you have redefined the term "WMD," each to suit your argument.

Nothing I posted proves YOUR point.


I am not arguing a "Bush Sr. didn't finish the job". I am arguing that it was a job that the US should not have undertaken in the first place. I do agree though, that "Bush didn't finish the job" is partisan baloney, since the same people would have criticized any invasion that followed.

Ask ANY vet on this board who was in the First Gulf War whether or not we should have undertaken removing Saddam from Kuwait. You might get some rather nasty responses and the crap that pure garbage from Iran did to the Kuwaiti's was inhuman. At the time, I would have willingly burned Iraq to the ground and sifted the ashes to make sure I didn't miss anything.

What should have been undertaken, is Clinton should have finished the job abou the 3rd, 5th, or 10th time Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement and not left cleaning up the mess that festered for eight years for Bush to do.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Right. Applying something said when Saddam was at war with Iran to Saddam invading Kuwait is rather dishonest.

I wasn't talking about the Iraq/Iran war. I was talking about April Glaspie's comments to Saddam when he was massing troops on Kuwait's border. Note: I am not necessarily alleging conspiracy in this particular instance, I think may very well be a matter of gross incompetence.

Wikipedia sucks as a credible source of info; likewise, you can hardly call UNICEF unbiased.

Do I really even need a source to tell me that economic sanctions have far more devastating effects on ordinary citizens than on a nation's rulers?

You're confusing two wars. I was speaking of the First Gulf War. The fact Saddam was or was not a threat to the US is irrelevant.

No, I was speaking of the first gulf war too. And a foreign government's threat or non-threat to the US is the only valid measure of whether we should wage war.

You folks who take this stance redefined "threat to the US" after the fact, just as you have redefined the term "WMD," each to suit your argument.

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here. How has "threat to the US" been redefined? Or WMD's? Could you be specific?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my definition of "threat" would be:

1) Possesses WMD's (this is pretty easy; ask Timothy McVeigh. Most nations with any sort of semi-modern professional army have something which would qualify.)
2) Evidence that they are going to use them against americans, or give them over to terrorists who will use them on americans

Ask ANY vet on this board who was in the First Gulf War whether or not we should have undertaken removing Saddam from Kuwait. You might get some rather nasty responses and the crap that pure garbage from Iran did to the Kuwaiti's was inhuman. At the time, I would have willingly burned Iraq to the ground and sifted the ashes to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Every vet wants to believe that he fought for something noble, just like every government social worker wants to believe that government checks are helping cure poverty. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

If we're going to deploy our armies based upon injustices perpetrated by governments (instead of threats to the US), we'd better occupy nearly all of africa, the middle east, and asia.

 

[Annie]

I wasn't talking about the Iraq/Iran war. I was talking about April Glaspie's comments to Saddam when he was massing troops on Kuwait's border. Note: I am not necessarily alleging conspiracy in this particular instance, I think may very well be a matter of gross incompetence.

The 'diplomat's' comments, inappropriate and unauthorized though they were, (another of a State Dept. flunky thinking they should make policy), were not received by the average person on the street. Saddam didn't really bother sharing those types of propaganda worthy comments, as he didn't need to convince his people of 'following him,' at least literally. We saw different though, with his armies on the borders during both 'wars', no?

Do I really even need a source to tell me that economic sanctions have far more devastating effects on ordinary citizens than on a nation's rulers?

Probably not so much in Iraq. The people were pretty much left to fend for themselves; before and after 'sanctions.' As an aside, not so much to you, but the Oil for Food corruption hurt the ordinary people in ways that the sanctions never could have, and may have led to the current conflict.

No, I was speaking of the first gulf war too. And a foreign government's threat or non-threat to the US is the only valid measure of whether we should wage war.

Maybe in your strictly libertarina world, but that option for the US has been gone since 1945, to the degree you are wishing for. As for removing him as a conclusion to the first war, we would not have had the 90's economy, but may have had a better start to the 21C. But we didn't, GB1 decided to follow the agreement with the 'international community' which did seem a good idea at the time.

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here. How has "threat to the US" been redefined? Or WMD's? Could you be specific?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my definition of "threat" would be:

1) Possesses WMD's (this is pretty easy; ask Timothy McVeigh. Most nations with any sort of semi-modern professional army have something which would qualify.)
2) Evidence that they are going to use them against americans, or give them over to terrorists who will use them on americans.

As OKC and 9/11 proved, one doesn't need WMD to cause mass murder. Terrorizing on a smaller scale-even just 'threats', with the subsequent loss to the economy and well being of the citizens is even easier. It is the #1 job of the government to address such threats from sources that have a proven record of using such tactics-Hamas/Hizbollah come to mind.

Every vet wants to believe that he fought for something noble, just like every government social worker wants to believe that government checks are helping cure poverty. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

If we're going to deploy our armies based upon injustices perpetrated by governments (instead of threats to the US), we'd better occupy nearly all of africa, the middle east, and asia.

Here's something we can agree upon. We can't cure the world's injustices, certainly not with handouts or armies. However, when there are 'proven' threats, at home and to our interests, it is the responsibility of our government to provide remedies, in the most appropriate manner.

 

[Gunny]

I wasn't talking about the Iraq/Iran war. I was talking about April Glaspie's comments to Saddam when he was massing troops on Kuwait's border. Note: I am not necessarily alleging conspiracy in this particular instance, I think may very well be a matter of gross incompetence.



Do I really even need a source to tell me that economic sanctions have far more devastating effects on ordinary citizens than on a nation's rulers?



No, I was speaking of the first gulf war too. And a foreign government's threat or non-threat to the US is the only valid measure of whether we should wage war.

Disagree. If a nation poses a threat or attacks a nation or nations allied to the US by treaty, it is considered an attack on the US itself. That in itself is legal justification.

Morally I consider your statement the absolute in selfishness and completely unacceptable, IMO.


I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here. How has "threat to the US" been redefined? Or WMD's? Could you be specific?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my definition of "threat" would be:

1) Possesses WMD's (this is pretty easy; ask Timothy McVeigh. Most nations with any sort of semi-modern professional army have something which would qualify.)
2) Evidence that they are going to use them against americans, or give them over to terrorists who will use them on americans

"Threat to the US" and "WMDs" has been redefined as ICBMs with nuclear warheads. Any other form of threat and/or WMD is discounted since it is not split-second "immediate," for the purpose of making dishonest, one-sided arguments against the current administration.

By evidence I can only assume you mean that with the aid of a crystal ball, we are supposed to somehow nab a perpetrator between the time he takes possession of a WMD and when he uses it. The reality of that type thinking is the US will only be able to react after the fact. I'm sure that brings consolation to the victims.

A perfect "for instance" would be the 9/11 hijackers. Let's just suppose we had pulled our arrogant heads out of our collective "it can't happen to us" trance and paid attention to every little clue and nabbed those nimrods before they acted.

The ACLU, left and MSM would have had a field day making accusations of civil rights abuses against Bush and/or his administration. The evidence of 3,000+ bodies was required. That's a BS way to think and it sets us to lose.

Every vet wants to believe that he fought for something noble, just like every government social worker wants to believe that government checks are helping cure poverty. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

It has nothing to do with "wanting to believe." The facts are pretty cut and dried and ANY time I serve in ANY cause that brings about the downfall of a genocidal sociopath I consider it quite the worthy endeavor.

If we're going to deploy our armies based upon injustices perpetrated by governments (instead of threats to the US), we'd better occupy nearly all of africa, the middle east, and asia.

I have NO problem with doing so.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Probably not so much in Iraq. The people were pretty much left to fend for themselves; before and after 'sanctions.' As an aside, not so much to you, but the Oil for Food corruption hurt the ordinary people in ways that the sanctions never could have, and may have led to the current conflict.

So wait, are you saying that plugging whatever "leaks" were in the blockade would have been good for the Iraqi people? The only thing that led to the current conflict was our government using flimsy evidence.

Maybe in your strictly libertarina world, but that option for the US has been gone since 1945, to the degree you are wishing for.

It isn't gone at all. That's just empty rhetoric we all learn from grade school history books, along with such rubbish as "FDR got us out of the depression". There isn't any nation on earth that could even come close to matching our military might, and we're surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. There is no need to intervene in every little pissant conflict all over the globe, and have military bases in 100+ countries.

In 1939 at least you could make a case that Japan or Germany had the means and/or a motive to attack america, especially since we weren't interested in neutrality at that time. However not every situation is "OMG 1938 all over again". The very idea of Saddam being able to send troops across the seas and set foot in america is utterly hilarious. If he conquered the entire middle east (lol), he would not have the industrial base of Germany or Japan in 1939.

He also would not have armed forces that are competent, seeing as how Arab armies are such a joke. Their very culture is notorious for information hoarding, where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, so to speak. A reporter once asked an Israeli general, What's the secret to the IDF's repeated success against overwhelming (numerical) odds? "Always fight against arab armies" the general replied.

So then you're down to Saddam's funding of the 9/11 terrorists, which didn't happen; or some wacky thing about Saddam using drones to deliver poison gas, which also wasn't true.

BTW, it's "Libertopia".

As OKC and 9/11 proved, one doesn't need WMD to cause mass murder. Terrorizing on a smaller scale-even just 'threats', with the subsequent loss to the economy and well being of the citizens is even easier. It is the #1 job of the government to address such threats from sources that have a proven record of using such tactics-Hamas/Hizbollah come to mind.

It's their job, if that particular group is plotting on attacking america, or it's members are setting foot in america. Otherwise it's none of our concern. I couldn't care less if the Tibetian People's Liberation Front bombs a Chinese city for whatever reason.

Disagree. If a nation poses a threat or attacks a nation or nations allied to the US by treaty, it is considered an attack on the US itself. That in itself is legal justification.

Morally I consider your statement the absolute in selfishness and completely unacceptable, IMO.

I guess nearly every other nation in the world is "selfish" too, for not wanting to get involved in some war that does not concern them in any way.

"Threat to the US" and "WMDs" has been redefined as ICBMs with nuclear warheads. Any other form of threat and/or WMD is discounted since it is not split-second "immediate," for the purpose of making dishonest, one-sided arguments against the current administration.

By evidence I can only assume you mean that with the aid of a crystal ball, we are supposed to somehow nab a perpetrator between the time he takes possession of a WMD and when he uses it. The reality of that type thinking is the US will only be able to react after the fact. I'm sure that brings consolation to the victims.

A perfect "for instance" would be the 9/11 hijackers. Let's just suppose we had pulled our arrogant heads out of our collective "it can't happen to us" trance and paid attention to every little clue and nabbed those nimrods before they acted.

The ACLU, left and MSM would have had a field day making accusations of civil rights abuses against Bush and/or his administration. The evidence of 3,000+ bodies was required. That's a BS way to think and it sets us to lose.

I was under the impression that we did in fact have pretty decent evidence of something fishy with the 9/11 attackers, and that we could have brought them in rather easily. At any rate, 9/11 could have been entirely prevented if we'd allow airlines to profile and/or refuse service based on ethnicity, and simply allow the pilots to carry guns (which the allegedly pro-gun/pro-security Bush administration continues to fight).

I'm afraid that yes, we will have to wait until a government hands WMD's over to terrorists. Otherwise, we're occupying the whole freaking world (which would spread us too thin and weaken us, just like other empires in history that overextended themselves), because any dumbass with a knowledge of chemistry can improvise explosives or poison gas.

I have NO problem with doing so.

Then by all means, find some like-minded individuals, load up your gear, and go on a holy crusade for democracy and freedom in a country that has never known it, and has a culture that would never support it. Just don't ask for the massive taxes and conscription that your crusade would require.

Also, your attitude is unamerican, historically speaking. People came over by the boatload, partially to escape the senseless wars of europe. That's why WWI was so unpopular, the memories of european wars were still fresh in many americans minds. The idea of using force to spread goodness and enlightenment to people who don't threaten us is an idea that was hatched by yankee progressives. Unfortunately, it's infected the rest of the country by now.