Why wasn't Iraq treated at par with Libya & North Korea. Has America compromised its security for Oil & Israel ?

You beat me to the punch. This article is so filled with factual errors it should have a tag of "fiction".

Ditto. In the marketplace of ideas, assertions of fact at variance with truth undermine any argument built on them. You can't build on vapor.

So.....you don't think there is no growing violence in Iraq and the invasion and occupation of that distant foreign land made the world a safer place? Elsewhere on the internet you can find month-by-month civilian casualty figures for Iraq.

One doesn't debate facts: one researches them.

All that fancy John Stuart Mill stuff I wrote above about the marketplace of ideas applies to you and I as well as Mr. Chadha. Your conclusions might be just as suspect as you hold Mr. Chadha's, if your facts are wrong.

I don't personally think the Iraq invasion had anything whatsoever to do with Israel, but how is saying it did an "antisemitic slander against Israel." It is an observation on what American foreign policy was based on--not a slam against the State of Israel. Misguided but not bigoted..do you think?

Discussing America's foreign policy support of the Nation of Israel can and should take place without having the participants labeled as bigots, haters, racists etc. I don't deny there is a peck of them out there, but throwing around the label bigot chills discussion and I am pretty sure that chilling discussion by labeling would-be discussants as haters is a worse sin against the marketplace of ideas than coming unprepared with bad facts.

What do you think?

You drop the hate word too quick sir.

1) Since March 2003, there have been around 71,000 civilians killed in Iraq (see IraqBodyCount dot org), the extreme majority of them by Islamic terrorists. This is an average of 16,400 per year. Saddam Hussein's regime was responsible of the death of more than 2,000,000 people in 24 years. This is an average of 83,300 per year. So, there is 5 times less violence in Iraq nowadays than before 2003.

2) It's easy to prove that the world is safer now than it was before the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein's criminal regime: thousands of Islamic terrorists have been killed in Iraq since 2003. Hadn't they been killed, they would be committing bombings and mass murders nowadays in other countries. Thus, the world would be less safer.

Terrorist Death Watch (terroristdeathwatch dot com) has the figures for the terrorists killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of 2006: 4,884 in Iraq and 2,612 in Afghanistan. These are the minimal proven numbers of terrorists killed in those countries.

3) I agree with you that the writer of this article may just be misguided (as he is, concerning the other points of his article), nevertheless the accusation that Israel (thus the Jews) may be the cause for a danger for non-Jews (America's alleged "compromised security"), even if indirectly, and that Israel may influence America's foreign policy, bears all the marks of a classic anti-Semitic slander.

Leroidavid:

Like yourself, my bigot antenna pop out whenever I hear Israel or Jewish people tied into all kinds of stuff that have nothing to do with the nation or the religion. I think it is better to be less accusatory in our responses to potential revelations of bigotry. Sometimes the speaker is just a misguided person of goodwill rather than a bone-deep bigot; sometimes not. I also think some supporters of our foreign policy toward Israel seek to discourage discussion of the issue by labeling potential discussants as bigots.

I'm for assuming the best in people, until as individuals they prove themselves unworthy of the presumption. I think generalizing evil motives over whole classes of people is a form of bigotry itself. I think Frank Zappa's little hunk of hair below his lips was just weird. I think I am a pontificating ass whom I'd eschew if had the opportunity--sorry.

Saddam killed 2 million a year? Iraq has only 27 million people today. Saddam ruled from 1979 to 2003--call it at least 22 years. At 2 million a year he would have killed 44 million Iraqis--that would be considerably more people than died in WWII, were killed by Stalin in his purges or by Mao in his Cultural Revolution.

Saddam was a genuinely evil guy--his idols were Hitler and Stalin (true), he was a paranoid totalitarian and a murderous thug, but making a myth of his evilness so flexible that it justifies any policy is not a good basis for foreign policy--though it is apparently a workable way to garner public support for a failed foreign policy.

Paul Simon (the singer, not the dead bow tie guy) said, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." That is the challenge for all of us. Maybe this website will do some good in that regard.

I didn't accuse the writer of being antisemitic, I spoke of "the antisemitic slander against Israel".

Someone can lazily repeat an antisemitic slander, and not be an antisemite.

I spoke of an "antisemitic slander" because it's a typical antisemitic motto to say that the Jews are the cause for all the problems in the world. And the title of this article "Has America compromised its security for Oil & Israel" clearly links Israel to an increased danger for America, thus reviving the old accusation of the Jews being a danger for the non-Jews, even if indirectly.

Secondly, the article incidentally brings back the old idea of the Israeli (thus Jewish) influence on the US foreign policy, a traditional anti-Semitic motto too, dating from medieval Europe, where the Jews were accused of influencing the public policy in the States of the German Empire, in Spain and so on.

3) It's very sad to see once more the antisemitic slander about Israel and so on.

I would of wrote this instead.

Its sad to see once more slander against Israel and so on.

As the article gave no mention of the Jewish faith or Jewish race or belief, how the hell can the article be antisemitic? its anti Israel, please take care of the use of the word antisemitic.

<Babel Fish, can you find any good reasons as to why Iraq was treated in a different way than Libya & North Korea. Both of these countries had been working on either nuclear programs or missile programs. No nuclear programs or WMDs were ever found in Iraq instead intelligence was faked to make people believe that Saddam was the biggest threat o America.

If the US administration could spend billions on the war & homeland security then whats the problem in spending some time in diplomacy.

It could be just simply that Saddam laughed at 9/11 and Mr Bush of which I think is more than likely, plus all that useful oil profit going to waste, some to those UN official's etc.

This is the first time you have brought good evidence to this debate, WMD etc but your old evidence is deplorable. You seeming feel that the guys behind this bad Bush decision are Israeli politicians, but your information is flawed it shows no direct proof, as said earlier you need to go back to the drawing board get better proof and rewrite your article. Because you have lost your argument and its to silly to continue further debate.

I can not defend Mr Bush on any issue, though in this case I can defend Israel even though I do not agree on their policies though I have Jewish blood, but what you are try to prove so far, looks ridiculous to me at present. Though as I said earlier there is a possible link to Israel, but we can only surmise that factor only George Bush and some of his administration would no the facts.

But of course you know better and each time you defend your bad evidence you end up with more egg on your face.

I keep hearing the "war for oil" argument. Oil is fungible. It seems to me our leaders must be aware of this central fact. So long as Iraq or any nation sells its oil into the world market--even if it refuses to sell directly to any specific country, the sale increases world supply and redirects other oil to supply the scorned nation. So, in a macro-sense, I don't think the argument holds water (let alone....). Why go to war for oil when every drop of oil put in the world supply from whatever source increases the amount of oil available to you?

Another argument has Bush and Chaney going to war so that American-based multinationals get the opportunity to act as middle-men for the Iraqi oil as it flows into the world market--the enrich our buddies by killing our soldiers argument. Huge money is involved in oil production: for individuals even if there is no public interest to justify war. I have read in histories of wars being initiated on such motives, but I tend to doubt such an evil scenario in this case. Americans go to war only if directly attacked or if presidents lead them to it. American presidents are usually focused on their own legacies, are fixed financially for life, and see things from a pretty high perspective--even unprepared and impulsive men who stumble into the office.

However, there is another perspective: that of historical development. The world is headed toward oil shortages. China is coming on line big time---both as an oil consumer and a presumed military superpower. In the competition for future limited supply, considerable effort is being put into lining up suppliers by the EU and France (it's ass-kissing of terrorist authoritarian Islamic regimes, as recently as last week), China and, one would suppose, the US.

This process has actually been going on since WWII when both Churchill and FDR auditioned for Saudi Oil contracts for firms in their nations. FDR won because he smoked in private when the Saudi King was aboard FDR's ship while Churchill waved his famous cigar in the face of the puritan Saudi King. The consequences of FDR's successful audition can be measured in hundreds of billions of dollars passed through the pockets of American executives and shareholders rather than through British owned oil companies.

Part of the Saudi king's decision turned on which military power was most likely to dominate in the post WWII world. In the last 60 years Saudi Arabia has maintained it relationships with American oil companies in large part because American military might offers the best protection for its borders and against insurgent zealots within the Saudi society.

But again, this aspect of the "war for oil" argument doesn't ring true for me. Economic gunboat diplomacy has proven a poor investment of national resources. The realities of the market eventually win out over any political arrangement. Venezuela and Mexico threw-off their American oil company masters many decades ago and still do business with them because the market demands it. There is even talk in Congress of banning any oil contracts with Iraq during the occupation.

War for oil just seems to me just too historically unnecessary and uncertain in result to be the underlying motive.

Plus, where is the evidence? "War for oil" is hard to disprove because it assumes nefarious concealed motivations.

So what is left as a motive for war? What our president told us--build a bridgehead for democracy in the Islamic heartland. If it worked, it would have been cool. Unfortunately, teaching democracy down an occupier's gun barrel hasn't worked so well. The Iraqi democracy isn't working well as a functioning institution, nor is suppressing the insurrection. US Grant had about a third as many troops available to suppress R.E. Lee than the 350 Iraqi security force members we've trained and equipped. Yet, Iraq's insurgency rages on.

I think the answer to why we went to Iraq can be found in George W. Bush's special relationship with God. He says so. He was selected to do big things and bringing democracy to the Islamic world would certainly be that. Unfortunately, self-assumed mandates from God do not overcome political, social and cultural realities. God may work miracles, but he or she seldom does so on behalf of the fool hearty---including those who elect the unprepared and self-righteous.

We have a leaders who replaces preparation for office with self-certainty. Blind self-certainty is the surest way to drive yourself over a cliff.

USA was a target prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thats why 9/11 happened. USA was a soft target now its becoming more harder to penetrate.

No you where saying "Iraq War, Has America compromised its security for Oil & Israel" Refering to US home land security.

Now your saying

You have had your answer to your first question, now you are saying US forces are being attacked, yes this is a problem already addressed in Newsvine.

But I thought we were dealing with Israels involvement, of which you have not proven by solid evidence.

No I am not going up this new red herring avenue until you give proof to Israels involvement of which is the pending matter of debate.

All American intellegence agencies and commissions who've looked into the issue say that there were no operational ties between Saddam's regime and Al Queda because, as a secular ruler in the Islamic heartland, Saddam had as much to fear from Al Queda's fundamentalist ideology as Western states.

Prior to the war, Chaney and Rummy put an office in the Defense Intelligence Agency to seed "evidence" of such a relationship into the government's intelligence flow. We oven know who they bought this "intellegence" from: Ahmed Chalabi's nephew.

To me the big questions here is no longer whether there was an Al Queda-Saddam link--that has been definitively disproved; the big questions are: 1) How do we keep a similar national self-deception from misleading the public in the future into supporting a war. The history of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and this incident suggest strong-willed presidents are likely to manufacture public rationales for war after the decision to go to war has been made. 2) Given the availability of the facts, why do some Americans persist in believing the Saddam-Al Queda link actually existed. Is that just too painful a fact to admit?

Nice try but simply does not wash. Saddam was encouraging Salafist clerics in the Sunni areas of Iraq as a bulwark against the Shi'a for years before the invasion. Further, he consistently referred to himself in those days as a latter-day Saladin to bolster his bona fides with the faithful. Further, it is extremely simple-minded to say such strange bedfellows as the Iranians, al Qaeda and Saddam could not make common cause against a larger enemy. Bin Laden has addressed this specifically in his fatwas. And we now know from the 9/11 Commission report that the Iranians provided safe passage for the 9/11 crew and have reportedly given safe haven to several al Qaeda honchos. We also know that Saddam was harboring Abu Nidal who suddenly ended up a "suicide" by shooting himself multiple times shortly before the invasion. And all this nattering on about the lack of operational ties between Saddam and al Qaeda is simply that -- nattering. There were, as Mr. David points out, numerous meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda throughout the 1990s as recently documented in an op-ed in the Washington Post by a career DIA analyst who was there long before the arrival of the neocons.

Actually there is so-called "evidence," though I don't accept it as motivating the war.

The "evidence" would be Paul Wolfowitz's famous and founding memorandum for Neoconservatism. In that memo, Wolfie proposes a series of unilateral wars to accomplish American foreign policy goals. Wolfie was just downright excited by the collapse of Soviet military countervailance to American military might.

Among the goals Wolfie listed for long-term American foreign policy was preventing the Muslim states from pushing the last Israeli into the sea.

Now I know Bush spent the years before he was 40 boozing and coking-it-up instead of building the intellectual capital he'd need to lead the nation. I don't think baseball promoting prepared him much for the presidency. I don't think holding the weakest of our 50 domestic state governorships is a good recommendation for world leadership.

But.....saying Bush read Wolfie's memo and then said, "Heck Dick! Let's invade Iraq!"

Nor do I think an American policy commitment to preventing the obliteration of the Israeli state is wrong nor unworthy of military intervention, if need be. I think the powers should intervene where ever genocide occurs. It is a poor reflection on the world when the powerful can't even agree to stay the hand of genocide.

So Wolfie's statement of the goal was OK in my view, even if his proposed mechanism for achieving the goal was a case of national self-aggrandizement in the extreme.

Okay I see your point, so we can truthfully say the article was not intended to be antisemitic your not antisemitic

I really hate the use of antisemitic sometimes its to harsh.

However I think you need to get your evidence correct as there where some members here with better knowledge of the Middle East cut you to bits.

everybody would agree that Iraq was the wrong choice to send that message to the world.

There is a difference between intent and effect.
Your ssentence above is about intent; Hans Blix's quote is about effect.

The only involvement concerning Israel would of been their happiness at a muslim military threat being culled.

The bonus to homeland security its receiving the money to improve its effectiveness.

The losers are those that are about to die and those that have laid down their life for their countries and the innocent that have been maimed and slaughtered.

The people that paid are the American tax payers.

The people that made money, politicians and cooperate entities.

The gullible, the American public of whom voted George Bush into power.