I'm busy rooting for the Red Sox to lose the 1986 World Series.

So, nothing, then?

you cut my words, I don't know what I'm supposed to be justifying here

I was responding to your previous post quoting me, genius.

another mourns the loss of the previous "government" in iraq


nope

the blame for the the terrorism lies with the evil terrorist scum themselves - stop making excuses for them

the worst that can be dumped on the allies is that they didn't pay enough attention to traffic coming in from syria & jordan....but harbouring of terrorists and their free passage to iraq is really jordan & syria's fault

ps. your mask is so fucking funny - are you parodying yourself?



[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

Nobody did that. The suggestion, since you missed it, was that the neocons attempted to bolster Israel's position in the Middle East.

yes - that is the suggestion

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.

And, having spent the afternoon spreading manure on my garden - let me tell you this shit stinks.

Your completly overinclusive rant - attempting to connect anyone who implies that America's invasion of Iraq was related to security for Israel is an antisimite is worse than inaccurate, it is insulting.

There are several simple facts here

1. Security for Israel has been a lynchpin of American foreign policy in the Middle East since 1948. The Middle East Review of International Affairs article
2. Following the 1st Iraq war, in 1992 Cheney's "B-team" consisting of Wolfowitz, Libby, Perl and others put together a secret "Defense Planning Guidance" document in which several scenarios playing out potential threats to US interests including "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking." One of these scenarios was the invasion of Iraq.document This document later showed up as the US National Security Strategy in 2002. NSS document
3. In 1998 the Project for a New American Century sent a letter to President Clinton stating "It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard,"and urging him to "to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." The letter was signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perl. PNAC document
4. Following 9/11/01 Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perl - the primary Civilian architects of the invasion of Iraq - moved forward with the plans that they had articulated in 1992 and 1998. Bob Woodward in the book Plan of Attack (p. 186) quotes Bush as saying that "While the “war against terrorism is going okay,” the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.” This was 6 months before the invasion.

In sum - as I said initially - the invasion of Iraq was planned as early 1992, and had as it objectives three things: installing a friendly government in Iraq, securing access to oil and addressing the security of Israel.

Now, you may dismiss this as conspiracy theory if you would like, but the simple fact is, the US has always been committed to the security of Israel and there is nothing unusal or even compelling about this conclusion. I have not spoken about a "Jewish Lobby", I have not spoken of a "Jewish Cabal", I have not said that the US went to war "for" Israel. I am simply saying that the neoconsevative core of the Bush administration planned this war long ago and - back to the point I was making initially - WMD were of no concern, they were simply the Ghost we chased along a predetemined path to invading Iraq and that, among their objectives, was the security of Israel. In and of itself that is a minor point. It is you who is making it into a big deal.

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by NickFaust]

This thread=the reason I'm avoiding the CE boards more and more. How often can you beat your head against a brick wall.

You are far more tenacious than I.

I am planning on going to the maximum security wing of the nearest jail and setting free a bunch of nasty hard-core violent criminals.

When they go on the inevitable murder/pillage rampage, I'll be confident that UpTight will be loudly defending my actions.

"TFOK is not to blame! It's the criminals who did this!"

Thanks in advance, UpTight, you're a chum!

Nice evasion. You evidently have a poor grasp of recent history. Saddam didn't cosy up to islamic fundies until it became clear we were going to invade no matter what he did. His history up till then was remarkably anti-fundie islam.

You still haven't adressed our clear failure to maintain any sort of consistent law and order from the invasion onwards.. which is the point being made here. Exchanging one known individual, contained problem (Saddam) for a vast set of different, more widespread problems is not success, especially when you plunge your country into record debt and tie up your army for years to do so.

Lay off the neocon Kool-aid.

Nick - you may not have spoken about the ethnicity of the Cabal - Duke certainly does - people get the message.

A small group of people of "undefined ethnicity"....er.... wolfowitz, perl, cohen, rumsfeld, get togther and decide to invent a war for Israel's benefit. The spilling of Christian blood for the Jewish state.

It's a modern day blood libel.

The war was fought because Saddam invaded kuwait and didn't adhere to the conditions of the ceasefire.

period

leave off the Dukeqsue "war fought for Israel" conspiracies and I'll lay off pointing out that you are propagating Dukesque conspiracy theories.

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

Just a bump since you seem to be reading, UpTight. I want you to know I appreciate your defence of my actions, in advance.

this really puts the anal into analogy

The allies didn't go to Iraq to create the terrorist blight but to stop a mafia clique from torturing the country and threatening the world.

The terrorists didn't enter because, thanks to the allies, they were sudden free to do. They went in to stop Iraq from becoming a democracy.

They failed - Iraq has a democratic process now and large voter turnouts, despite the threats, underline their failure.

If you express regret about the invasion of Iraq, you not are only condemning the terrorist actions but everything else that goes with it - the freedom to practice a religion, the routing of Saddam and his monsterous sons, a free press, free speech, freedom to protest and the establishment of democracy.

Think about that as you sip your tea in the comfort of Australia.


[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]