You are an idiot Trader556. These are Americans, born and bred. They only hold one passport. There are more in opposition to the policies Wolfowitz et al (you left out Richard Perle) promote than in support of them. Examine the memberships of various antiwar groups, your thesis goes down the toilet. We have a hawkish administration which will fill its ranks with hawks. Plain and simple. Once again,you are an idiot.
I totally disagree. The Israeli passport question is a trivial part of what Trader 556 posts. The idea of "Pax Americana" is the key concept here. None of the other arguments really hold up and can explain why the US is willing to risk and spend so much to occupy Iraq. Oil has been well deconstructed here as a cause beyond a side benefit. Its clear that WMDs and supposed connection with bin Laden et all is silly when one considers that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Iran are well documented (even by the US government!) to be much larger state supporters of international Islamic terrorism than Iraq. Iran recently was reported to be the home for bin Laden's son as well as other al queda big wigs. The North Korea nuclear developments further reveal the lies of the WMD situation. Pakistan built the Taliban, likely helped al Qaeda escape from Afghanistan and has a nuke program founded and run by fundamentalists and documented to have tried to help Al Qaeda get nukes. Iran is starting its own reactor- not just buying aluminum and is still controlled by Islamic maniacs despite claims of reform. Sure Hussein is a sadistic madman but plenty of those are good allies in our fight against terrorism. Remember all those stan countries surrounding Afghanistan? Most of them are led by unreformed Stalinists who brutalize their populations. There are many other cruel leaders who we are quite close with. Again, IMO the Pax-Americana theory is the only one that explains the urgency and logic behind this war. Sure, all of the justifications for attack have some truth to them. However, in the larger picture, they begin to look silly.
No - the point has been made that slogans such as "No blood for oil!" over-simplify a complex but very real issue. For Marxists, Islamo-fascists, and their fellow travelers (unwitting and otherwise), virtually any efforts by the US and others to press their interests in the Persian Gulf region will equate with conquest and imperialism. For supporters of an aggressive policy, Iraq's own oil reserves and the country's proximity to other critical oil resources magnify its significance in multiple, mutually reinforcing ways: Iraq is in a position to endanger critical world energy supplies, to blackmail the world on that basis, and, through its own access to oil wealth, to retain and increase its power. Why is this so difficult to understand? This line of argumentation is "silly" when one considers the unique situations of each of the mentioned countries. Pakistan's support of Islamic terrorism is, for the moment, mainly a thing of the past, as demonstrated most clearly by Musharraf's strategic decision to back the US in Afghanistan. The US relationship with Saudi Arabia is long and complicated, and may someday be subject to revision, but SA, in contrast to Iraq, has mainly been a force for stability in the Persian Gulf. As for Iran, there is significant hope that the country may evolve on its own in a direction favorable to US interests. North Korea is likewise a separate, unique case: Among other things, its geostrategic significance does not compare to Iraq's as far as US and other countries' interests are concerned. That doesn't mean that NK's nuclear ambitions and other bad actions are insignificant, only that NK's situation requires and allows a different approach. More generally, as Bush attempted to spell out in his State of the Union address, and as really ought to be obvious, it makes no sense to attempt to apply the identical tactics to every situation. Even if the US made the unwise decision to use force against every one of the regimes you mention, and against all the other bad actors in the world, it would make no sense to attack them all at the same time. What I think you mean by "Pax-Americana theory" has been discussed at length in recent months. To the extent it refers to a frank assessment of US interests from an informed geopolitical perspective, it does not inherently contradict the "justifications for attack" that you dismiss so readily. It may, however, make it easier to understand them.
it is very easy to lament about Chamberlain´s appeasement policy without mentioning an important fact: neither Britain nor France had the muscle to confront Hitler´s Wehrmacht militarily at the time - as was demonstrated on the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940.
dgabriel! a pure numbskull calling out idiot? you hold first second and third place, -unless you misunderstood what I posted, and if you did ask for clarification- or go check and confirm your self man go back under your rock, check YOUR facts go check their bios, what is wrong with you people? a small sample and READ: 1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. 2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. 3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq. 4). Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq. 5). Henry Kissinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders, Chile dictatorship, and more recently served as Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. 6). Dov Zakheim----Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby. 7). Kenneth Adelman-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs bydefinition are Semites. 8). I. Lewis Libby -----Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. The chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. 9). Robert Satloff----U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk. 10). Elliott Abrams-----National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department. 11). Marc Grossman-----Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts. 12). Richard Haass-----Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon. 13). Robert Zoellick-----U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. 14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Kabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001. 15). James Schlesinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon. 16). Mel Sembler-----President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems. doozens more-you know them already FRuiTY PeBBLe's quote: Well, according to the poll, we now know that 25.40% of ET members are total idiots Ok Vinny the long$hit Contrary Pebbel bullcrap Nice try you bumpa$$. You are acting more of a jerk as time goes by. 25.40% of THAT poll were the same person that holds the dozens of aliases, AND holds a grudge against the moderator for doing an excellent job putting up with your $hit. The idiot is you multiplied by the number of times you voted Look man, give it a rest and let the moderators do their job. ET is one of the best free sites on the net, don't screw it up
If they wanted to prevent Saddam of anything they would have destabilised his regim a long time ago like they did in Venezuela or in any country when they want to. So this is just a farce.
You're suggesting that if Chamberlain had amended his famous phrase - perhaps by proclaiming "Peace for the next little while, maybe..." - he'd be remembered as a great statesman? Most historians consider Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis to have been a severe setback to Churchill and all the others who rightly believed that that war was coming, who were urging enhanced preparations, and who were desperately fighting against isolationism and every other form of wishful thinking. We'll of course never know how things might have been otherwise.