The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Sardinia · Feb 19, 2003

The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America
Robert Fisk

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0215-03.htm

(...)
The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation.

Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President.

And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons.

A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq.

It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organizations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations' objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld's snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolize the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.
(...)

It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just don't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don't want to fight for Blair either.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by Sardinia
The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America
Robert Fisk

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0215-03.htm

(...)
The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation.

Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President.

And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons.

A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq.

It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organizations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations' objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld's snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolize the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.
(...)

It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just don't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don't want to fight for Blair either.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i think all arguments that claim the Israelis are the enemy, or that they shouldn't be supported are ridiculous. Haven't the Jews had to put up with enough sh!t already!? Can't they have a little sliver in the desert to call their own? As for the "palestinians" there are no such people. "Palestinians" are really just Jordanians displaced from the 1967 war. That's another thing. Israel would have far less land than it does had its neighbors not repeatedly invaded it. Yes,the 1967 war was a first strike by Israel, but there were over 465,000 and 4000 tanks massing on all of its borders. Once again Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq were ready to "destroy the Zionist bastion"
Sounds to me like they should just leave Israel alone. And those displaced Jordanians should go back to Jordan. Yea and FDR was really for freedom when he aligned us with the Soviet Union,champions of human rights. If Roosevelt was really motivated by the noble cause of wanting to destroy totalitarianism, then why would he support a totalitarian gov't? And you can say what you want about a 2 front war, but the germans would have invaded the USSR anyways, so it would be the germans who would open up the second front. We didnt have to be allied with russia for them to fight germany. The argument can be made that FDR did what you say Bush is doing right now;start a war to rescue the economy and bolster his poll ratings.

GringoTex · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by Sardinia

The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading here.

Foosinho · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
The argument can be made that FDR did what you say Bush is doing right now;start a war to rescue the economy and bolster his poll ratings.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by Foosinho
You have to be kidding.
Click to expand...

Actually, I's serious. Sorry kids if i shattered your grade school dellusions about FDR, and how noble he was.

Foosinho · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
Actually, I's serious. Sorry kids if i shattered your grade school dellusions about FDR, and how noble he was.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony.

Anyway, my disbelief has nothing to do with FDR and everything to do with how non-comparable Hitler and Hussein are; how dissimilar WWII and "GWII" are.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by Foosinho
Oh the irony.

Anyway, my disbelief has nothing to do with FDR and everything to do with how non-comparable Hitler and Hussein are; how dissimilar WWII and "GWII" are.
Click to expand...

Wow, i like the acronym. How long did that take to come up with?

needs · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
Actually, I's serious. Sorry kids if i shattered your grade school dellusions about FDR, and how noble he was.
Click to expand...

I hate to resort to spell smack, but you's could use some more grade school.

irishFS1921 · Feb 19, 2003

but in highschool! they said.....

aw

Foosinho · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Case Against War: A Conflict Driven by the Self-Interest of America

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
Wow, i like the acronym. How long did that take to come up with?
Click to expand...

Less time than it took you to come up with that drivel near the top of the page, that's for sure.

obie · Feb 19, 2003

It was in the US' best economic interests to get into WWII, and many have speculated that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but let it happen in order to justify our entrance into the war. But it's been denied by every FDR associate ever, and never proven. So it remains just speculation.

As far as Israel is concerned, of course it's in their best interest to have a placid set of Arab neighbors instead of volatile ones. And I do believe that we're treading on very dangerous ground when we unilaterally invade a sovereign country when neither we nor our allies have been invaded or attacked. But even I find the idea of Israel pulling the Bush and Blair strings on this to be crazy.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
It was in the US' best economic interests to get into WWII, and many have speculated that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but let it happen in order to justify our entrance into the war. But it's been denied by every FDR associate ever, and never proven. So it remains just speculation.

As far as Israel is concerned, of course it's in their best interest to have a placid set of Arab neighbors instead of volatile ones. And I do believe that we're treading on very dangerous ground when we unilaterally invade a sovereign country when neither we nor our allies have been invaded or attacked. But even I find the idea of Israel pulling the Bush and Blair strings on this to be crazy.
Click to expand...

I can't stand when people call Iraq a "sovereign gov't." Iraq is not this innocent, "soveriegn" state you all make it out to be. He doesn't even control the north of iraq, and 2/3 of his country is a no fly zone for his own air force. Iraq is an outlaw state at best, guilty of many crimes.

Foosinho · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
It was in the US' best economic interests to get into WWII, and many have speculated that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but let it happen in order to justify our entrance into the war. But it's been denied by every FDR associate ever, and never proven. So it remains just speculation.
Click to expand...

I won't deny that it was indeed in the US' best economic interests to enter WWII. That's fairly obvious.

That nonsense that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen... that's repugnant BS.

As is the ongoing (and completely rediculous) comparison between Hitler and Hussein. I mean, come on.

needs · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
It was in the US' best economic interests to get into WWII, and many have speculated that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but let it happen in order to justify our entrance into the war. But it's been denied by every FDR associate ever, and never proven. So it remains just speculation.

Click to expand...

And the US economy was doing quite well by late 1941, given that war production was in full affect due to the effects of lend-lease. Now you might make an argument that FDR pushed lend-lease to boost the economy (and he only just got l-l through congress, by 1 vote IIRC). Where the JFK conspiracy theorists at least have entertaining stories to spin and a good cast of crazies to interview, the Pearl Harbor conspiracy people are just boring cynics.

obie · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
I can't stand when people call Iraq a "sovereign gov't." Iraq is not this innocent, "soveriegn" state you all make it out to be. He doesn't even control the north of iraq, and 2/3 of his country is a no fly zone for his own air force. Iraq is an outlaw state at best, guilty of many crimes.
Click to expand...

I can't stand when people confuse the government of a country with the right of the country to exist.

obie · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by Foosinho
I won't deny that it was indeed in the US' best economic interests to enter WWII. That's fairly obvious.

That nonsense that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen... that's repugnant BS.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it happened, I said that it's been speculated, a lot. We were monitoring Japanese troop movements in the Pacific, and they were not nearly as sophisticated as the Germans in masking their communications. So it's feasible that the US knew in advance. Whether or not the FDR administration really knew is what's up for debate. It's immoral to think that they did know and let it happen, but immorality hasn't stopped other administrations from other actions.

Here's the Straight Dope take on it, which concludes that it's crap. Take it for what you want.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
I can't stand when people confuse the government of a country with the right of the country to exist.
Click to expand...

WHY DOES EVIL DESEREVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST?

joseph pakovits · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
WHY DOES EVIL DESEREVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I assume since you tink this way that your first move will be to get Bush out of the White House and disband the Republican Party. Second will be to dump the capitalist system based on greed, exploitation and violence and replace it with one based on co-operation, sharing and compassion. Third will be to attack China, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, North Korea and the various Latin American right wing death squads and replace them with our new co-operative, sharing, compassionate society. Good luck!

obie · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
WHY DOES EVIL DESEREVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the all-caps, as my eyesight has been failing lately.

Saddam is NOT Iraq -- please learn the difference. Just as Bush is not the US, Blair is not the UK, Chirac is not France, Sharon is not Israel, etc. For as much as people find Saddam "evil", Iraq remains a sovereign country. Traditionally, we don't invade sovereign countries that haven't attacked us or our allies. In almost all cases, such action is seen as aggression and a violation of international law.

To summarize:

Saddam = bad
Iraq = not bad

Get it? If you don't, that's fine -- our President doesn't understand the difference, either.

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
Thanks for the all-caps, as my eyesight has been failing lately.

Saddam is NOT Iraq -- please learn the difference. Just as Bush is not the US, Blair is not the UK, Chirac is not France, Sharon is not Israel, etc. For as much as people find Saddam "evil", Iraq remains a sovereign country. Traditionally, we don't invade sovereign countries that haven't attacked us or our allies. In almost all cases, such action is seen as aggression and a violation of international law.

To summarize:

Saddam = bad
Iraq = not bad

Get it? If you don't, that's fine -- our President doesn't understand the difference, either.
Click to expand...

Gee, actually saddam is iraq. Seeing as how his picture is all over the country, and how he got "100"% of the "vote". Saddam absolutely is iraq. He rules it with his will. Duh. Thanks for understanding the difference btw. a democracy and a dicatorship. If saddam is bad, why can't he be dealt with?

diablodelsol · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by obie
Thanks for the all-caps, as my eyesight has been failing lately.

Saddam is NOT Iraq -- Traditionally, we don't invade sovereign countries that haven't attacked us or our allies
Click to expand...

What about sovereign countries that fail to live up to the agreement they signed to halt hostilities in a previous conflict?

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by diablodelsol
What about sovereign countries that fail to live up to the agreement they signed to halt hostilities in a previous conflict?
Click to expand...

Exactly, now why can't other people realize this?

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

FWIW, my memory is that the US knew something was up in early December, 1941. And we kinda sorta knew the Philippines were about to be attacked, but there wasn't much we could do about it. But the Pearl Harbor attack was out of the blue.

And about failing to live up to agreements...the US just executed a man, in Texas, despite the fact that we didn't fulfill our obligations to him as a Mexican citizen. Does this mean that it's right for other nations to attack the US?

Loney keeps making this point, and it keeps bouncing off of your collective skulls...why is invasion the only option for you guys?

mannyfreshstunna · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
FWIW, my memory is that the US knew something was up in early December, 1941. And we kinda sorta knew the Philippines were about to be attacked, but there wasn't much we could do about it. But the Pearl Harbor attack was out of the blue.

And about failing to live up to agreements...the US just executed a man, in Texas, despite the fact that we didn't fulfill our obligations to him as a Mexican citizen. Does this mean that it's right for other nations to attack the US?

Loney keeps making this point, and it keeps bouncing off of your collective skulls...why is invasion the only option for you guys?
Click to expand...

Because Saddam has proved time and again, he doesn't listen to the UN, he doesn't listen to economic sanctions, he doesn't listen to his own people. The only thing he listens to is US military might. Unfortunatley, we have to deal with him in this medium. AN even better question is why is avoiding this problem the only option for you? Why don't you support taking out someone you have said yourself was evil? Whats the hangup?

diablodelsol · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by superdave

And about failing to live up to agreements...the US just executed a man, in Texas, despite the fact that we didn't fulfill our obligations to him as a Mexican citizen. Does this mean that it's right for other nations to attack the US?

Click to expand...

Come on, at least make an attempt to stay relevant