“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Was Iraq worth it? Hell no!

Was Iraq worth invading? You decide......

11 years after the invasion there are 4,500 US deaths there, countless billions of dollars spent, and a resurgent Al Qaeda is reeking havoc around Baghdad, killing other Iraqis, releasing prisoners, and doing pretty much what they want. The Iraqi government is more unstable and vulnerable to collapse now than at any time. Was getting Saddam out and finishing Bush41's campaign worth it? In another year Iraq will be worse off then with Saddam Hussein.

In my estimation, Iraq has been a colossal and utter failure. The more I think about it, the more this makes sense.....before we go to war, every politician enriching himself with taxpayer money must enlist one of his adult children in the Army and that kid will be on the front lines. Then let's see how many third-world invasions we so cavalierly undertake. I'm betting none.

It's easy to send other peoples' kids to die pointlessly, if your goal is to paint yourself as a tough-on-terror war hawk to the neo-con voters who think everybody's business is our business.  


Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Hell yeah it was worth it. Worth it in the sense of advancing Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Ed said...

Not clear on how toppling Saddam advances Zionist hegemony, but if you say so.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"Not clear on how toppling Saddam advances Zionist hegemony, but if you say so."

My saying it doesn't make it so, Ed. Thousands of well-informed, well-educated, level-headed commentators saying it gives it a patina of truth though.

But, having studiously avoided all those thousands of voices, I can certainly understand why you would be "not clear" on this and related subjects.

Ed said...

Isaac, in all likelihood, a regime more hostile to Israel than Saddam's will eventually rule in Iraq. How is that good for the evil Jooos? Is your contention that the more hostile the respective regimes are toward Israel, them more likely war between them will be? And that's exactly what Israel wants?

Dude, that's the most convoluted reasoning I've ever heard, if that's what you're arguing. It would be as if Rube Goldberg designed the Israeli 20year outlook.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

That is your go-to stratagem, isn't it, Ed? Attacking strawmen.

Do you honestly think that your readers can't recognize it when you attribute notions to me that bear no resemblance whatsoever to what I actually wrote?

Do you think they swoon at your brilliance when you do so?

I don't know, maybe they do. I don't.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Since Ed won't go to the mountain, I will bring the mountain to Ed.

“I stand with the president because I know that Iraq without Saddam Hussein is so much better for the security and safety of Israel..." ~then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, November 2006

"In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Specifically, it called for an "effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right..."
~Mark Weber (footnote: Text posted at http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm See also: J. Bamford, A Pretext for War (Doubleday, 2004), pages 261-269; B. Whitaker, "Playing Skittles with Saddam," The Guardian (Britain), Sept. 3, 2002.)

"My own answer is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001..." ~Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist

There is much, much more but this is enough for everyone (with the exception of Ed) to get the point.

Ed said...

None of this sounds like an Israeli plot to control the middle east. It sounds to me like a tiny nation who is vastly outnumbered by existential threats all around, and who thinks that a less hostile Iraq is good for Israel in terms of not having to fight anybody.

No doubt Israel would like the US to invade and de-nuclearfy (to coin a word) Iran, but that doesn't mean Israel wants to dominate Iran any more than they wanted to control and dominate Iraq. They just don't want to be threatened.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"...a tiny nation who is vastly outnumbered by existential threats all around...."

You just don't get it, do you, Ed? It is little Israel that is an existential threat to the entire world.

Israel is the nuclear nation not a signatory to, or in compliance with, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel is the nation with an openly-declared Sampson Option ("Either we get our way or we will destroy the world.")

Israel is the nation that uses the threat of financial Armageddon to coerce the leaders of other nations.

Israel is the nation with German-made nuclear-armed subs with which she intimidates the leaders of other nations to do her bidding. ("So, retaliate. You might destroy us but your nation will be made uninhabitable in the process.")

Israel is the nation that has purposefully adopted a mad dog persona, the objective of which is to intimidate the rest of the world into staying out of its way.

Israel is the nation with the STATED goal of ruling first the Middle East and after that, the world.

You may deny it all, Ed. Israel does not deny it. It is her manifest destiny, don't you see.

Ed said...

Even if some Israeli politicians say these things, I don't see the progression of recent and historical events culminating in that end-state.

Israel operates in a US-defined box and occasionally steps out of it to attack the weapons plant in Iraq or the nuclear facility in Iran(soon), but don't you think we gave them secret permission to do what they do?

We use Israel to do our middle-east dirty work when it suits us, and they use us when it suits them. But at the end of the day, they pretty much are limited by us.

Israel is like our child in a play-pen.....she has all the freedom and autonomy in the world....as long as it stays in the play-pen.