The war on Iraq - Has He Made the Case?

[ad rian]

>Every controversial subject is turned by you into a diatribe

>against the Jews. This thread isn't about Israel, it's

>about Iraq.

>

>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

 

No.

 

1. Israel and the Jews are not synonymous.

 

2. The thread is about the case for war. Since the arguments for the war (thus far unrefuted by you despite your name calling) apply a fortiori to Israel, and the war as I have said is senseless in that an Israel as a regional WMD power CAN NEVER represent a stable equilibrium. Sorry, Charlie!

 

3. Since I could easily have been a 9/11 victim, I won't tolerate your name-calling or Stalinist attempts to silence me!!

[BewareofNick]

>>Every controversial subject is turned by you into a diatribe

>>against the Jews. This thread isn't about Israel, it's

>>about Iraq.

>>

>>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

>

>No.

>

>1. Israel and the Jews are not synonymous.

 

I think this qualifies as the most mind boggling statement of the year. Most Israelis are Muslims, right?

 

>2. The thread is about the case for war. Since the

>arguments for the war (thus far unrefuted by you despite

>your name calling) apply a fortiori to Israel, and the war

>as I have said is senseless in that an Israel as a regional

>WMD power CAN NEVER represent a stable equilibrium. Sorry,

>Charlie!

>

>3. Since I could easily have been a 9/11 victim, I won't

>tolerate your name-calling or Stalinist attempts to silence

>me!!

 

Stalinst attempts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Talk about drama queen!!! Look, you can say what you want, when you want and how you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely pathological obsession with bashing Jews.

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[ad rian]

>>1. Israel and the Jews are not synonymous.

>

>I think this qualifies as the most mind boggling statement

>of the year. Most Israelis are Muslims, right?

 

The Israeli state is a subset of World Jewry. That you don't this, shows your ignorance. One can resist that state without being antisemitic, and I await your atttempt to refute my facts and arguments, but alas from you only name-caling. How pathetic!

 

>>2. The thread is about the case for war. Since the

>>arguments for the war (thus far unrefuted by you despite

>>your name calling) apply a fortiori to Israel, and the war

>>as I have said is senseless in that an Israel as a regional

>>WMD power CAN NEVER represent a stable equilibrium. Sorry,

>>Charlie!

>>

>>3. Since I could easily have been a 9/11 victim, I won't

>>tolerate your name-calling or Stalinist attempts to silence

>>me!!

>

>Stalinst attempts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Talk about drama

>queen!!! Look, you can say what you want, when you want and

>how you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you

>have absolutely pathological obsession with bashing Jews.

 

Buddy, why not try to answer my questions. Your refusal to do so shows your intellectual bankruptcy! Your obfusacations will not change the argument. What exactly is it that makes secular Iraq worse than theocratic Israel?

[BewareofNick]

Thanks for once again proving my point. This thread asks the question "Has President Bush made the Case for Invading Iraq?"

 

You once again turn this into an anti-jew thread, just as you did in the thread about Catholic priests and the molestation scandal.

 

Your "subset of world jewry" and faux intellectualism are sad attempts to try and mask your bigotry. For shame, sir, for shame.

 

Can you answer the question of teh thread without using the words Jew, semite, anti-Semite, Zion, Zionism or Israel or israeli? I somehow think not.

[ad rian]

>Thanks for once again proving my point. This thread asks

>the question "Has President Bush made the Case for Invading

>Iraq?"

>

>You once again turn this into an anti-jew thread, just as

>you did in the thread about Catholic priests and the

>molestation scandal.

>

>Your "subset of world jewry" and faux intellectualism are

>sad attempts to try and mask your bigotry. For shame, sir,

>for shame.

>

>Can you answer the question of teh thread without using the

>words Jew, semite, anti-Semite, Zion, Zionism or Israel or

>israeli? I somehow think not.

 

Can you answer my questions? Can you refute my arguments/. or canyou only call-names. How pathtic! I am sure that both the Jews and the Zionists (words which re distinct to me) are embarassed by your inability to try to debate me coherentlty. THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN POSED. ARE YOU PREPARED TO ANSWER? Let me make it simple. Do you think that Israel as a WMD regional super power can be a stable equilibrium in that region. Take the cock out of your mouth, bitch, and try to give an honest answer!

[ad rian]

>Stalinst attempts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Talk about drama

>queen!!! Look, you can say what you want, when you want and

>how you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you

>have absolutely pathological obsession with bashing Jews.

>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

 

I just read your profile link link to your web site. Why am I trying to have an inteligent debate with a noted escort fraud!!

[BewareofNick]

>>Thanks for once again proving my point. This thread asks

>>the question "Has President Bush made the Case for Invading

>>Iraq?"

>>

>>You once again turn this into an anti-jew thread, just as

>>you did in the thread about Catholic priests and the

>>molestation scandal.

>>

>>Your "subset of world jewry" and faux intellectualism are

>>sad attempts to try and mask your bigotry. For shame, sir,

>>for shame.

>>

>>Can you answer the question of teh thread without using the

>>words Jew, semite, anti-Semite, Zion, Zionism or Israel or

>>israeli? I somehow think not.

>

>Can you answer my questions? Can you refute my arguments/.

>or canyou only call-names. How pathtic! I am sure that

>both the Jews and the Zionists (words which re distinct to

>me) are embarassed by your inability to try to debate me

>coherentlty. THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN POSED. ARE YOU

>PREPARED TO ANSWER? Let me make it simple. Do you think

>that Israel as a WMD regional super power can be a stable

>equilibrium in that region. Take the cock out of your

>mouth, bitch, and try to give an honest answer!

 

How can you sit their and complain about me supposedly calling you names and then turn around and do the very thing you bitch about?

 

Answer the question posed by me at the start of this thread. Has President Bush made the case For Invading Iraq? WITHOUT any of your anti-Jew anti-Israeli anti Semitic rhetoric and then I will happily answer yours.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[BewareofNick]

>>Stalinst attempts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Talk about drama

>>queen!!! Look, you can say what you want, when you want and

>>how you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you

>>have absolutely pathological obsession with bashing Jews.

>>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

>

>I just read your profile link link to your web site. Why am

>I trying to have an inteligent debate with a noted escort

>fraud!!

 

Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself? I am not Nick, I am Neal. Nick is the escort I ahev warned people about, hence the name BEWAREofNick.

 

The fact that you cannot even make that simple distinction is very telling.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[phage]

>You seem to have dificulty refuting facts. Was I wrong in

>what I said about Israel? If so, where?

 

Help me out. This is what you said in your post:

 

1. You assumed that I meant Israel when I said “friends” and stated that no one else in the region was in favor of war. (Well…duh.)

2. You called Israel a genocidal Zionist state. (True colors showing here.)

3. You claimed to know the thoughts and intent of several Jewish Americans. (More of those true colors.)

 

Where the hell is the fact that I am supposed to refute? Am I supposed to enter a serious debate with you about whether Israel is a genocidal state? Am I supposed to pretend I’m privy to the inner convictions of the men you mentioned?

[Guest Not2Kinky4me]

Gee Adrian, all ya had to say was "NO I dont agree" !

 

Wouldn't that have been easier for you and every reader here?

 

Please dont reply.:+

[BewareofNick]

Don't worry, he'll find someway to blame it on Israel. It was probably Israeli spies that made him confuse me with Nick too.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest elwood]

Too bad the way these threads seem to self destruct. BON raised an appropriate question. The role of Israel in this is very much to the point actually.But anti-semitism is way off base. However, to criticize Israel is NOT automatically anti semitic.I feel the US House of Representatives today exhibited its sheep-like and partisan nature....and the Senate will be even MORE spineless.However..the debate was a benefit.Soon..these politicians will realize that the AVERAGE American is actually quite skeptical about a pre-emptive strike onn Iraq. The middle east is a thorny mess.The Islamic fundamentalists do indeed wish DEATH to all JEWS it seems.Yet Jews and Moslems have lived for centuries together in the same areas.Then came thr\e 1947-48 coup d'etat when a militant group of terrorists overpowered the tired post war British protectorate and

expelled the Palestinians (only the non Jewish ones) from the land in which they had lived for centuries.That's where this began.Were the Jews justified? IN my view NO!. Were Jews murdered,oppressed for centuries?

YES! Mostly by Christians in Europe.Does that justify what happened to the Palestinians? NO!.Believe me,I have no respect for militant Islamic fundamentalism..indeed I feel it is one of the greatest threa

ts to our world.....just slightly behind Christian fundamentalism.As for Jewish fundamentalism...it is also dangerous...it ranks just behind Hindu fundamentalism...and of course there is plain irreligious secular greed and capitalist "free market" religion.The only non threats are reason and humanism...but thats probably because they are in the overwhelming minority. Damn its depressing.Isn't GOD a great excuse to kill? Boy am I ever glad he's on our side.

[Guest 7Zach]

And don't forget Israel selling American aircraft specs to the chinese in the late 1990s. They're our ally, to be sure, but equally clear - we don't always have the global interest.

[Guest fukamarine]

>And in all those cases, there was a clear and present

>danger. There is not any greater danger in Iraq than there

>is in any of the other rogue nations out there, such as

>North Vietnam. Why aren't we invading them too?

 

Give us time, my boy. Just give us time.

 

fukamarine

[Guest]

Well, a month ago, I said he (Bush) was crazy--we had to at least give Saddam a chance to submit to inspections. As of this time, however, Saddam has made it clear that he will not agree to the inspections (to which he agreed after the war). It's also clear he's hiding "something" (exactly what, I don't think too many people outside of Iraq know). How it's done can be debated, but it seems obvious that force will have to be used at some point or another...

[ad rian]

>Answer the question posed by me at the start of this thread.

> Has President Bush made the case For Invading Iraq?

>WITHOUT any of your anti-Jew anti-Israeli anti Semitic

>rhetoric and then I will happily answer yours.

 

Well, for the umpteenth time the case against Iraq has not been made because the logic used against Iraq aplies equally to Israel, and it is silly to think that removing WMD from Iraq without doing so in Israel can or will result in a peaceful stable equilibrium in that world. We are going to pay for that decision for years, and we will continue to be targeted at home as a result of that hypocritcal policy. There now answer my questions. Again, criticizing Israel is not antisemitic. If you can criticize Iraq without being anti-Arab, why does that logicnot apply to the critique of Israeli use of WMD?

[ad rian]

>Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself? I am not Nick,

>I am Neal. Nick is the escort I ahev warned people about,

>hence the name BEWAREofNick.

 

Sorry, that is not so clear why a link about Nick would be your own profile. Isn't that a bit excessive?

[ad rian]

>Too bad the way these threads seem to self destruct. BON

>raised an appropriate question. The role of Israel in this

>is very much to the point actually.But anti-semitism is way

>off base. However, to criticize Israel is NOT automatically

>anti semitic.

 

>The middle east is a thorny

>mess.The Islamic fundamentalists do indeed wish DEATH to all

>JEWS it seems.Yet Jews and Moslems have lived for centuries

>together in the same areas.Then came thr\e 1947-48 coup

>d'etat when a militant group of terrorists overpowered the

>tired post war British protectorate and

>expelled the Palestinians (only the non Jewish ones) from

>the land in which they had lived for centuries.That's where

>this began.Were the Jews justified? IN my view NO!. Were

>Jews murdered,oppressed for centuries?

>YES! Mostly by Christians in Europe.Does that justify what

>happened to the Palestinians? NO!.

 

I agree with much that you have said here. All that I would add is that the British MO was divide and rule everywhere. It is no accident that India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine remain conflicts today. Where is the link to Iraq, or to this thread? Well, if you look at the history you will realize that Kuwait a historic province of Iraq from antiquity was purposefully carved out of Iraq at the end of the British Protectorate's control of the former Ottoman Empire. You see Saddam was not quite so crazy when he "invaded" Kuwait. You also see why those who defend Israel must also attak Iraq. The logic that makes Kuwait a valid state is the same as that that makes Israel a valid state.

 

I reiterate, anybody who thinks you are going to put either issue to bed with an invasion and occupation of Iraq is engaging in a very dangerous form of wishful thinking. It seems to me that absent the kind of Stalinist rhetoric we see repeatedly on this Board at any mention of Israel, we might actualy be able to have a useful debate and Congressional vote on this subject. I guess that's why the Stalinists try so hard to stifle that debate.

[BewareofNick]

Not really. It's just that your pathological obsesseion with Israel and the Jews renders you incapable of making any coherent statement regarding these issues. Instead of just answering the question, you turn it into part of your anti-Israeli /anti Jew agenda that is so transparent

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest Not2Kinky4me]

Yeah I agree, de-railment has occurred on this thread because of protracted arguments of unrelated subject matter. Complex debates of unrelated subjects are unproductive and extremely time consuming thus inappropriate for a "message board" or "chat room" where intonation and emotions are frequently and easily misunderstood which exascerbates the ongoing vicious cycle of additional unrelated debate ! (Sorry for the run-on sentences).

 

For instance, its unproductive to debate or argue the relevance or irrelavance of non-compliance to previous UN counsel resolutions unless it pertains to Iraq. Other unrelated non-compliances ("two wrongs") dont make the current non-compliance "right" - get it?

 

As for Israel, a reasonable person should be able to find fault Israel as well as support them dependent upon the particular issue or event at hand. It's NOT all one sided and if you assert it is, then youre most likely biased or uninformed. Israel is an extremely complex subject matter and is truthfully irrevelant to IRAQ's weaponry and threats.

[ad rian]

>As for Israel, a reasonable person should be able to find

>fault Israel as well as support them dependent upon the

>particular issue or event at hand. It's NOT all one sided

>and if you assert it is, then youre most likely biased or

>uninformed. Israel is an extremely complex subject matter

>and is truthfully irrevelant to IRAQ's weaponry and threats.

 

Well, the only problem is that our European and Middle Eastern alies, including Tony Blair, ALL disagree with you. That is what makes the debate in Congres and the conversation on this Board so surreal.

[Guest 7Zach]

Your post was a good one, and points made. However, I disagree with the assertion that Israel has nothing to do with whether we invade Iraq or not. In any discussion of Iraq, the issue of the Palestinians and Israeli security needs is at the forefront. True, the administration has gone to pains to divorce Israel from any part of this owing to our desire to gain Arab support, but it is, at most, a matter of semantics and not policy. It is all a balancing act, which I assume is true of any foreign policy decision.

Incidentally, CNN just said that occupation of Iraq would be based upon the American occupation of Japan. News reports last night said a minimum of 75,000 troops would be needed. I do wonder what the truth is. Maybe Kalifornia is in the National Guard...

[ad rian]

>Gee Adrian, all ya had to say was "NO I dont agree" !

>

>Wouldn't that have been easier for you and every reader

>here?

>

>Please dont reply.:+

 

I will reply, sorry. Yes, that would have been easier, but when one is talking about momentous war/peace decisions of this kind, giving in to the attempts of others to silence you because they find your ideas uncomfortable is not good for public policy. I have raised a number of points here that Neal or Nick or whatever his name is chooses not to answer, but to charaterize me for asking them.

 

Even I I agreed that Israel is irrelevant to the Iraq issue, would that change the fact that the neighbors of Israel and Iraq ALL think that the issues are linked? So while the President may have made his case to Congress by ignoring the Israeli issue, unfortunately that is not going to get us very far with our allies. If you say, so what, please remember that UBL used the occupation of Palestine and Saudi Arabia as justification for 9/11. Do you think occupying Iraq would give rise to more or less such sentiments. You may disagree, but please don't shoot the mesenger.

 

Lastly, I would prefer that these political questions not come up on the Board, but once they come up, you must expect some room for disagreement, and some ideas that you might find unpleasant. I have never initiated a discussion like this here, but I will respond if others want to start them.

[ad rian]

>Help me out. This is what you said in your post:

>

>1. You assumed that I meant Israel when I said “friends” and

>stated that no one else in the region was in favor of war.

>(Well…duh.)

 

How is that antisemitic? And how is it wrong?

 

>2. You called Israel a genocidal Zionist state. (True

>colors showing here.)

 

Res ipsa loquitur, but I suppose you could try to explain the WMD sales to apartheid South Africa.

 

>3. You claimed to know the thoughts and intent of several

>Jewish Americans. (More of those true colors.)

 

All of the people I named are prominent advocates of the war and close advisors to W, self-defined neo-cons and proud and public Jews. Again, how can it be antisemitic to critique them for their public views. You are correct though that I do not know their private thoughts and intents. Maybe they don't really believe the public positions they advocate.

 

Other than that, the questions I asked you to refute have been stated several times here? Anytime you are ready to try, I am ready to listen.

[Guest Chazzz69]

I am still unconvinced that the President has made his case but in today's edition of the Washington Post, there is an interesting analysis by Glenn Kessler. For me the clincher comes at the end of the peice by Joseph Cirincoine of the Carnegie Edowment for International Peace:

 

"Whether this is a carefully constructed strategy to talk tough to get a compromise or a splintered administration patching together policies on the fly to see what gels, the result is the same," Cirincione said. "He scared most of the world into thinking he was going to war, and he is likely to get a better inspections regime than anyone thought possible two months ago."

 

For the full article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com

 

I am always amazed at the number of people who underestimate this man as president. George W. Bush is much smarter than given credit for and uses the general assumption that he is lacking intelligence to his advantage time and time again.

 

He has succeed in getting the broadest expansion of presidential war powers since the Gulf of Tonkin Resoultion out of Congress. The UN Security Council is slowly moving in the direction he has outlined. The UN General Assmebly will have little choice but to vote in favor of stronger measures against Iraq. Finally, he has boxed-in the Democratic party, stolen or derailled many of the mid-term election issues this year. Even if its a cynical political ploy to maintain the Republican majority in the House and possibly take the Senate back, he must be given credit for such incredible political savy.

 

You liberals out there may not want to admit such but facts are facts. Keep this in mind, George W. is much more his mother's son rather than his father's. Many of the traits he exhibits are those of Barbara Bush rather than George H.W. Bush. He is not to be underestimated, if you need proof ask Al Gore.

 

Still I am opposed to any action against Iraq at this time.

 

Now I am off the more important things, Secrets strip bar in Southeast DC. I will pull on a couple of dicks for you bitches. :+

 

Chazzz69