Study: U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby (1 Viewer)

[White]

Study: U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published Thursday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Observers in Washington said Thursday that the study was liable to stir up a tempest and spur renewed debate about the function of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby. The Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/695495.html

MORE

http://www.democracyinaction.org/di...r.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

http://www.democracyinaction.org/di...tp://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

 

[PeteEU]

Old news. Everyone outside the US can see this and has seen this for 40 plus years. The Arab world has especially seen it and the radicals have used it to the fullest to motivate the masses.

Also ever looked at who are seen as the main men behind the neo con revolution in the US? Look at thier family, political and economical ties and then relook at the neo con policies in the middle east.

 

[Kelzie]

So our policy in a region is motivated by one of our strongest allies in that region, who happens to be threatened a lot. And that's....bad?

 

[Gibberish]

Also ever looked at who are seen as the main men behind the neo con revolution in the US? Look at thier family, political and economical ties and then relook at the neo con policies in the middle east.

Blasphemy, there is no political or business agenda in the middle-east for certain American families. They want us there to free the great Muslims civilians from non-democratic rule! :usflag2:

:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

So our policy in a region is motivated by one of our strongest allies in that region, who happens to be threatened a lot. And that's....bad?

It is bad if US interests are made subservient to the interests of another country.

It is not in US interests to fight Israel's battles. IMO.

 

[Iriemon]

Old news. Everyone outside the US can see this and has seen this for 40 plus years. The Arab world has especially seen it and the radicals have used it to the fullest to motivate the masses.

Also ever looked at who are seen as the main men behind the neo con revolution in the US? Look at thier family, political and economical ties and then relook at the neo con policies in the middle east.

I have come to the opinion that it is not just the neo-con pro-Isreal lobby behind it, but also the Christian fundamentalists who believe in the prophesy of armageddon and think the final battle between Muslems and Christians and Isreal will ultimately lead to the second coming and the rapture.

 

[Deegan]

The basic message here is, abandon Israel, or else.

I'm not the least bit intimidated, I will continue to support Israel, and continue to speak out against the unwarranted hatred for Jews in the M.E. The last time we abandoned our friends, 6 million were killed, just for being Jewish, we can not allow that to happen ever again. It is in our interest to free the people of the M.E, free them from oppressive rule, oppressive religious teachings, and help them to incorporate themselves in to civilized society.

 

[Kelzie]

It is bad if US interests are made subservient to the interests of another country.

It is not in US interests to fight Israel's battles. IMO.

They are our ALLY! We are not subservient to anyone. But we do help out the people that need it. And they need it.

 

[Captain America]

What Kelzie says is true but have you ever felt like Isreal was the buddy you go drinking with on Saturday nights that always gets you into a fight?

He's your buddy and all so what else ya gonna do?

Tell ya what I did. I quit going out with him.

Works for me.

 

[Iriemon]

The basic message here is, abandon Israel, or else.

I'm not the least bit intimidated, I will continue to support Israel, and continue to speak out against the unwarranted hatred for Jews in the M.E. The last time we abandoned our friends, 6 million were killed, just for being Jewish, we can not allow that to happen ever again. It is in our interest to free the people of the M.E, free them from oppressive rule, oppressive religious teachings, and help them to incorporate themselves in to civilized society.

They are our ALLY! We are not subservient to anyone. But we do help out the people that need it. And they need it.

IMO, a major reason why this country invaded Iraq was because of the neo-con, pro-Israel influence in this Administration. The fact that Hussein had embarrassed the current president's dad gave them a willing partner in the White House. Hussein posed little threat to this country, more of a nuisance, but he posed a major threat to Israel; we was a direct supporter of the Palestinian cause, and I'm sure they didn't forget how he lobbed a few scuds at them in 91.

So the neocons sold us a bill of goods on Hussein and we kept the pressure on him and 9-11 gave them the excuse they needed to invade (remember how they were telling us that Hussein was behind the anthrax found in the letters?) The neocons told us this would be a walk in the part and the Iraqis would all welcome us. They told us about the WMDs and how evil he was and on and on. The President went along with it all, distorted the evidence, and rushed the public to war.

It was not in this country's best interest to invade Iraq. It is not in our best interest to stay there, killing scores of muslems daily, increasing their hatred against us and fueling the radicals cause. It was, and is, in Israel's interest. Sometimes I wonder if that is more important to some in the pro-war side than what is in this country's best interests.

 

[PeteEU]

I aint saying that the US should abandon Isreal, just not be its lap dog all the time. Its so funny to see how US policy in the middle east is centered around Isreal and her enemies and not finding solutions. Iraq and Syria have never been any threat to the US, and yet its been neo con policy from the start to remove those 2 goverments from power. Iraq and Syria have of course been a threat to Isreal oddly enough.

If Isreal did not have big brother USA behind her, then maybe just maybe Isreal would not be so bloody hardnosed and willing to compromise on achieving peace. But at the moment there is zero incentive to do so, and they can basicly do whatever they want, may it be spying on the US, to putting up big fences in occupied areas, to murdering civilians.. there is nothing to stop them. As policy is now in the middle east, the war will continue and continue until one side or another is wiped out.

People keep going after Hamas for not accepting the right of Isreal to exist, yet no one in the US goes after Isreal for still wanting a greater Isreal and other radical zionist ideas, ideas that are still very much alive in certain powerfull areas of Isreali politics.

Both sides are supported by someone and they use that support to define policy and gather support. What if suddenly the world said.. screw you all, find a solution and until you have we withdraw all economic, military and political support. How fast do you thing Isreal and the Palestinians would find a solution?

However that aint gonna happen as the Palestinians got Iran and Co behind them even though no one really likes or accepts palestinians as arabs (nore Iranians for that matter) and Isreal got the US and as long as thats a fact, then no one (and especially Isreal) has any incentive to do anything towards finding a peacful solution.

People forget often that its Isreal thats the strong part in this war, and its the palestinians that are the victims of 50 plus years failed policy on all sides.

 

[Kelzie]

What Kelzie says is true but have you ever felt like Isreal was the buddy you go drinking with on Saturday nights that always gets you into a fight?

He's your buddy and all so what else ya gonna do?

Tell ya what I did. I quit going out with him.

Works for me.

I don't think Israel goes out looking for fights. They just want to be left alone, as far as I can see.

 

[Deegan]

I disagree completely that this so-called "Neo-Con" influence is as strong as many claim, in fact, it's a tiny group of Republicans, and the only thing that gives this argument weight, is the fact that the VP once belonged to it. I also realize that the VP's relationship with Halliburton is also at issue here, and the close ties the presidents family has with weapons contractors. Of course these things are puzzling to liberals who don't agree with any conflict, but men who know conflict can not be avoided, then set themselves up to make money from this. It's called capitalism, it's not a dirty word, and there is nothing wrong with being a smart business person. Still, some believe that anyone who profits from war, are people who are greedy, evil war mongers, people like Noam Chomsky. Yes, the same man who himself bought stock in the machine of war, the same man some of you think of as a misunderstood genius. He is brilliant, even he knows that to invest in these things are profitable, what a hypocrite huh?:roll:

 

[Captain America]

When ya get lemons, make lemonade I suppose.......:rofl

 

[Deegan]

When ya get lemons, make lemonade I suppose.......:rofl

LOL, yes, in other words, that may have saved me some time.:lol:

 

[Alias]

I agree with Kelzie. Israel is not picking the fight. The muslims want the entire area for muslims and no one else. If I go walking into the bar with my buddy and someone doesn't like his religion and threatens to kill him for it, please tell me how that is my buddy picking a fight on saturday night? Hmm? Please tell me. A friend would back up his buddy because his religion is his personal belief and no one else's business. This world was made for everyone.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
Max Boot

...support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism...

The National Security Strategy that he released in September -- which calls for "encouraging free and open societies on every continent" -- sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests... The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view...[called] "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

...[Neocons] think..."realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. ...[suggesting] we need to promote our values...[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East...
...[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.​

Here's an interesting article that covers quite a bit of ground on this issue. Granted, it doesn't cover the ground thoroughly, but it is a nice survey.

Quote:
Israel's Role: The 'Elephant' They're Talking About
FEBRUARY 28, 2003
By AMI EDEN
FORWARD STAFF

...the Israeli-Jewish elephant has been on...respected media outlets... Washington Post, The New York Times, the American Prospect, the Washington Times, the Economist, the New York Review of Books, CNN and MSNBC. ...the proverbial pachyderm...in the middle of "Meet the Press,"...

Tim Russert read from...the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave...that the "strategic objective"...was to secure Israel's borders by launching a crusade to democratize the Arab world.
[Then asked Richard Perle:]
"Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests?" Russert asked.

"And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"

...a startling question, especially when directed at Perle... If Russert is asking...on national television, then...The question...is now a legitimate query to be floated in polite company.

...Washington Post...[an] attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush...Robert Kaiser..."Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy." ...[including] a paragraph outlining a supposed rightward shift among American Jewish organizations.

"Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel" [Kaiser]

...January 25... the Economist published a lead editorial urging Bush to ignore "so-called friends of Israel who will accuse Mr. Bush of 'appeasement' the moment he pushes hard for territorial compromise." [available by subscription only]

Several Jewish commentators have...[warned] that subtle and not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones permeate the new wave of anti-war criticism. ...critics have charged these writers with unfairly playing the antisemitic card [to silence] opposition...

[Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman:]
...accept as legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials...
...it is...legitimate to question where the Sharon government or American Jewish groups stand on the war, the...line is... [portraying] these entities as a...Jewish conspiracy...[controlling]American foreign policy.
...American Jews are sometimes too quick to assume that antisemitism is at play...
"It is an old canard that Jews control America and American foreign policy. During both world wars, antisemites said that Jews manipulated America into war. So when you begin to hear it again, there is good reason for us to be aware of it and sensitive to it."​

Choice excerpts from the hard to find MtP transcript:
'Meet the Press' -- February 23, 2003

Quote:

TR: Richard Perle, there's been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by [Arnaud de Borchgrave]:
Quote:

"The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The de-stabilization of 'despotic regimes' comes next.

<snip>

"The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'.

"Israel...would 'shape its strategic environment', beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

"Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint."​

Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?

RP: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn't disarm- and I doubt that he's going to - believe it's in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we'd live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.
​

Choice excerpts from the Arnaud de Borchgrave article:

Quote:

A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Monday, Feb. 17, 2003

...strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel...have...merged into a...Bush-Sharon Doctrine.

...Washington's "Likudniks" — Ariel Sharon's powerful backers in the Bush administration — have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since President Bush was sworn into office.

In alliance with Evangelical Christians, these policy-makers include some of the most powerful players in the Bush administration.

Mr. Sharon...[convinced] Mr. Bush that the war on Palestinian terrorism was identical to the global war on terror. Next came a campaign to convince U.S. public opinion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies...

...senior members* of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.
Prime Minister Sharon has flown to Washington...more frequently than any other head of state or government [in those two years].

*[ Richard Perle,Study Group Leader, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser ]​

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Choice excerpts from the WaPo's Bob Kaiser article:
Quote:

Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

"This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA], a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.

"Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East," "But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem." [Sandy Berger]

The turning point...[was] when Bush embraced Sharon's view...[that] Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority [was] a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein...of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud.

...Bush appointed..[a] critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official... Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by...Condoleezza Rice, ...Cheney and...Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state...[under] Reagan...convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal...

...Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute...: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy."

...David Wurmser, [is] ...a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Douglas J. Feith,...undersecretary of defense for policy...​

JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. John Bolton.

Richard N. Perle, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser are also members of the Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees.

And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying.

 

[Kelzie]

I disagree completely that this so-called "Neo-Con" influence is as strong as many claim, in fact, it's a tiny group of Republicans, and the only thing that gives this argument weight, is the fact that the VP once belonged to it. I also realize that the VP's relationship with Halliburton is also at issue here, and the close ties the presidents family has with weapons contractors. Of course these things are puzzling to liberals who don't agree with any conflict, but men who know conflict can not be avoided, then set themselves up to make money from this. It's called capitalism, it's not a dirty word, and there is nothing wrong with being a smart business person. Still, some believe that anyone who profits from war, are people who are greedy, evil war mongers, people like Noam Chomsky. Yes, the same man who himself bought stock in the machine of war, the same man some of you think of as a misunderstood genius. He is brilliant, even he knows that to invest in these things are profitable, what a hypocrite huh?:roll:

It's all waayyy too conspiracy theory for me.

You know why people hate hypocrites? Cause they're right. Although in this case you have to consider what he's right about. The evil war machine or investing in said machine? Suppose one pays the bills.

 

[Deegan]

Choice excerpts from the WaPo's Bob Kaiser article:
Quote:

Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

"This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA], a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.

"Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East," "But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem." [Sandy Berger]

The turning point...[was] when Bush embraced Sharon's view...[that] Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority [was] a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein...of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud.

...Bush appointed..[a] critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official... Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by...Condoleezza Rice, ...Cheney and...Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state...[under] Reagan...convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal...

...Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute...: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy."

...David Wurmser, [is] ...a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Douglas J. Feith,...undersecretary of defense for policy...​

JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. John Bolton.

Richard N. Perle, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser are also members of the Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees.

And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying.

I don't really know where you are going with this, I have seen this copy and paste from you before. Are you suggesting it is wrong to side with Israel, that we are not connected, and are indeed strong allies? Or do you think that supporters of Israel should not be in positions of power in Washington, sounds like it does have anti-semitic under tones to me.

 

[PeteEU]

Isreal not picking a fight?

Lets see... They are building a wall that cuts through farms, and houses owned by Palestinians and in doing so cutting off towns from thier fields and livelihoods. Oddly enough this wall also grabs loads of very fertile land and places vital ressources such as water on the "right" side of the wall. That aint picking a fight?

Allowing radical jewish settlers to beat and kill palestinians almost at will,.. as long as the media dont get a wiff of it of course, then they are procecuted somewhat. That aint picking a fight?

Arieal bombardment of civilian areas, snipers shooting into houses, demolition of whole buildings that are too close to Jewish settlements? That aint picking a fight?

There is much more including aparthied like discrimination in Isreal proper and in the west bank but its rarely if at all heard in the US media.. we in Europe hear it all the time.

Isreal is no angel by any standards. Whatever radical thing the palestinians have done to Isrealies, Isreal has done just as bad if not worse towards the palestinians.

And lets not forget that Isreal was created out of pity and guilt and forced on the majority of the local population. The Arabs who had lived there for hundreds of years were forced out of thier homes and demonised by the world for reacting to what was in fact an invasion. That wrong in 1948/9 by the UN will haunt us for generations to come but its not something we can undo now and we have to live with it.

We might have to live with it, but why on earth should we pick one side over the other when both sides are as pigheaded and stupid? The palestinians-Isreali conflict reminds me of a blood war between to rival clans that never stops because one clan must revenge the death of a clan member no matter what. Its childish and stupid. Grow the **** up!

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with Kelzie. Israel is not picking the fight. The muslims want the entire area for muslims and no one else. If I go walking into the bar with my buddy and someone doesn't like his religion and threatens to kill him for it, please tell me how that is my buddy picking a fight on saturday night? Hmm? Please tell me. A friend would back up his buddy because his religion is his personal belief and no one else's business. This world was made for everyone.

I don't care who is picking fights. They have been fighting there for 5000 years. The question is whether our nation should be dragged into Israel's battles.

I am not saying we should abandon Isreal, or not support her if she is attacked, but to attack another nation that did not attack us for the benefit of Israel is too far, that goes beyond helping out an ally to fighting its battles.

 

[Kelzie]

Isreal not picking a fight?

Lets see... They are building a wall that cuts through farms, and houses owned by Palestinians and in doing so cutting off towns from thier fields and livelihoods. Oddly enough this wall also grabs loads of very fertile land and places vital ressources such as water on the "right" side of the wall. That aint picking a fight?

Allowing radical jewish settlers to beat and kill palestinians almost at will,.. as long as the media dont get a wiff of it of course, then they are procecuted somewhat. That aint picking a fight?

Arieal bombardment of civilian areas, snipers shooting into houses, demolition of whole buildings that are too close to Jewish settlements? That aint picking a fight?

There is much more including aparthied like discrimination in Isreal proper and in the west bank but its rarely if at all heard in the US media.. we in Europe hear it all the time.

Isreal is no angel by any standards. Whatever radical thing the palestinians have done to Isrealies, Isreal has done just as bad if not worse towards the palestinians.

And lets not forget that Isreal was created out of pity and guilt and forced on the majority of the local population. The Arabs who had lived there for hundreds of years were forced out of thier homes and demonised by the world for reacting to what was in fact an invasion. That wrong in 1948/9 by the UN will haunt us for generations to come but its not something we can undo now and we have to live with it.

We might have to live with it, but why on earth should we pick one side over the other when both sides are as pigheaded and stupid? The palestinians-Isreali conflict reminds me of a blood war between to rival clans that never stops because one clan must revenge the death of a clan member no matter what. Its childish and stupid. Grow the **** up!

Remember how I said people hate hypocrites cause they are right? Was it right for Israel to force the Palestinians out? No, it wasn't. However it is also wrong for the Middle East to force Israel out now. Hypocrtical? Absolutely, but that doens't mean it's not right.

I firmly believe that if the Palestinians would stop attacking Israel, the Israelis would stop building a wall and retaliating. They've got better things to do.

 

[Iriemon]

I disagree completely that this so-called "Neo-Con" influence is as strong as many claim, in fact, it's a tiny group of Republicans, and the only thing that gives this argument weight, is the fact that the VP once belonged to it. I also realize that the VP's relationship with Halliburton is also at issue here, and the close ties the presidents family has with weapons contractors. Of course these things are puzzling to liberals who don't agree with any conflict, but men who know conflict can not be avoided, then set themselves up to make money from this. It's called capitalism, it's not a dirty word, and there is nothing wrong with being a smart business person. Still, some believe that anyone who profits from war, are people who are greedy, evil war mongers, people like Noam Chomsky. Yes, the same man who himself bought stock in the machine of war, the same man some of you think of as a misunderstood genius. He is brilliant, even he knows that to invest in these things are profitable, what a hypocrite huh?:roll:

I understand the "neocon" influence was pretty strong, beside VP Cheney, you had Wolfawitz, a well known neocon, as Sec Defense, as well as several others.

As far as war profiteering, that is arguably another point -- the $9 billion no-bid contract Halliburton got certainly smells. No doubt there are those will oil interests who were and are salivating at the opportunity to get into Iraq's oil resources.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't care who is picking fights. They have been fighting there for 5000 years. The question is whether our nation should be dragged into Israel's battles.

I am not saying we should abandon Isreal, or not support her if she is attacked, but to attack another nation that did not attack us for the benefit of Israel is too far, that goes beyond helping out an ally to fighting its battles.

I am sceptical to say the least to the claim that we invaded Iraq for Israel. If/when we invade Iran, it will be partly to protect Israel. I see no reason why we should stand by when a country threatens to wipe our ally off the map.