Why do most arguments about Iraq end up with "what about Israel?"

[ssibal]

Why is it that in almost every thread concerning the Iraq situation there is always the token question "What about Israel(or Pakistan, Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia,......etc)." Assuming that the situations in these nations are the same as in Iraq (which they are not) does the fact that we have not yet acted against a certain nation in anyway invalidate our action towards Iraq? If you are pulled over for speeding do you tell the police officer "what about that car, its speeding too?"

[Tmy]

Ithink it ties back to the changing motives for invasion. It seems disingenuous White House to wave the democracy or humanitarian flag as a justifictaion for war wh Iraqi and yet accept and condone the same behaviour from others.

In your example if the police officer says they ticket as a matter of safety, except you notice that they are only pulling over black motorists who are speeding and not white.

[Thanz]

I don't know if most end up with Israel, but I have used North Korea in the type of argument you are complaining about. I will try to explain the relevance.

You have to start with the basic idea that nation A invading nation B is bad. It is considered wrong. If nation A wants to justify its actions, it had better have some pretty good reasons. If there is another nation, C, to which all of the reasons from nation A apply (except moreso), I think that one should be skeptical of the true motives of nation A.

Say our favourite baseball team needed a new first baseman. They have a choice of 2 players in their minor league system. One has a .300 avg., hits 35 home runs a year and drives in 100 runs. A very good player. The other hits .250, 20 home runs, and drives in 80 runs a year. A decent player. If your team calls up the second guy, don't you think you would ask why? The other guy does everything better.

It is the same with North Korea. Their dictator is as much of a bastard as Saddam, has broken treaties, and has confirmed that he has nukes. He will sell weapons to whoever will pay. He seems much more dangerous than Iraq. So why is the US behaving as if Iraq were the biggest threat?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

It is the same with North Korea. Their dictator is as much of a bastard as Saddam, has broken treaties, and has confirmed that he has nukes. He will sell weapons to whoever will pay. He seems much more dangerous than Iraq. So why is the US behaving as if Iraq were the biggest threat?
I agree, North Korea is a problem, and they are very dangerous. There are a couple of reasons why they should probably be handled differently however:
- They already have nukes. This means that they can cause a lot of damage very quickly. Saddam doesn't yet have them
- I really don't know what North Korea's goals are. Their leader may be unbalanced, but it is possible that their nuclear weapons programs are just a way to get more aid from the west ("Help us, and we will stop building nukes")
- North Korea is relatively isolated, and doesn't have many 'friends'. Iraq, on the other hand, is almost a symbol for people who want to see Islam beat the 'great Satan America', since Saddam has defied the U.S. for so long. Take out Iraq, and you change the dynamics of the middle east. (A democracy there can really help bring positive change)

Yeah, I know, its unfair that one dictator will survive, while another will be deposed. But, the U.S. has to pick its battles carefully.

[Tmy]

Are Saddam, Kim, Osama or any enemy leaders really unbalanced madmen or is that just propaganda.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Are Saddam, Kim, Osama or any enemy leaders really unbalanced madmen or is that just propaganda.
Good question.

In our western society, we assume someone who kills or lets die thousands of people to be 'bad'. Maybe these people are just the product of their upbringing, where they were taught that killing=good.

I still want them all dead though. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of that last statement.)

[Jon_in_london]

To me the whole thing about Isreal is that the continuing Isreali/palestinian conflict is the origin of Islamic terrorism. Ask any muslim what pisses them off the most and most of them will say Isreal.

Thus, to put an end to global Islamic terrorism we should be focusing on a solution to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict rather than invading some other Arabs on rather flimsy pretexts as the latter course will only lead to even more terrorism IMO.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
To me the whole thing about Isreal is that the continuing Isreali/palestinian conflict is the origin of Islamic terrorism. Ask any muslim what pisses them off the most and most of them will say Isreal.

Thus, to put an end to global Islamic terrorism we should be focusing on a solution to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict rather than invading some other Arabs on rather flimsy pretexts as the latter course will only lead to even more terrorism IMO.

That and Israel is as much a rogue state as Iraq in important ways. Which raises the question "Why is the USA supporting Israel with billions of dollars per year, and threatening to invade Iraq?".

Other states like Pakistan and North Korea are good examples to wave at uncritical supporters of US foreign policy, but Israel is the biggest and best example because the US doesn't just tolerate their crimes, it underwrites them.

I can see a consistent argument being made that the USA can't or shouldn't intervene in, say, North Korea. But the USA is already involved with Israel, and could pull it in to line at any time with one yank of the military-aid leash.

I think that's why most arguments about Iraq end up as arguments about Israel. It certainly looks at first glance like whatever is motivating US action in the Middle East, they sure aren't being honest about their motivations. That alone is cause for condemnation in a democracy to my way of thinking.

[Hazelip]

This is some interesting reading that was sent to me by a friend of mine.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30960
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30884

I was shocked to find myself agreeing with this particular author. The second article is of specific relevance to this issue.

[HarryKeogh]

what about israel? how come they can disobey UN resolutions and not have the UN intercede in their country's affairs as they are with Iraq. but then again, when is there uniformity in international law.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Hazelip

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30960
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30884

I was shocked to find myself agreeing with this particular author.

Patrick Buchanan is criticizing GWB's plans to invade Iraq??? Wouldn't have guessed it. Truly a curve ball from the far right.

I also worry that GWB may have become a "a prisoner of his own oratory," and may be unable to put the brakes on a war machine now good to go. A general ought to retain as many options as long as possible before committing to a particular action. Sometimes a show of force is enough. If I were in GBW's shoes, I'd combine some of the tough talk with a few hints that I'm considering a range of strategic choices, including the option of standing down.

All this is off-topic, sorry.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
what about israel? how come they can disobey UN resolutions and not have the UN intercede in their country's affairs as they are with Iraq. but then again, when is there uniformity in international law.
A couple of key differences....

- The Iraqi resolutions fell under a different set of rules. Someone mentioned they were 'chapter 7 enforcable' resolutions, wherease the Israeli resolutions were 'chapter 6 unenforcable' resolutions.
- Iraq had originally agreed to certain terms, and then broke the agreement. Basically, they agreed to disarm, and cooperate with inspectors. But they didn't. Israel, on the other hand, didn't agree to any special terms; the terms were basically forced on them. Its like the difference between me agreeing to buy a car from you, and you breaking the agreement (as in the case of Iraq), vs. me just telling you "You will sell me a car" without you indicating you would (as in the case if Israel)
- Israeli compliance depends on the compliance of other parties, such as the palestinians. However, the palestinians haven't been living up to their end of things (for example, the palestinian attempts to import illegal arms a year ago.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Hazelip
This is some interesting reading that was sent to me by a friend of mine.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30960
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30884

These are typical anti-war arguments... Basically, saying "North Korea is more dangerous than Iraq".

It may be true... Unfortuantely, it means that North Korea has to be handled differently. An attempt to use military against them would lead to a lot more deaths (especially if they use Nuclear weapons) than a fight against Iraq. (Part of the reason why the U.S. can and should take on Iraq first is that it can win relatively easily.)

Another reason.... North Korea is isolated politically. It has no real friends (well, some customers, but that's about it.) Iraq, on the other hand, may not be liked by many in other countries in the middle east, but a lot of them chear on Saddam because he stands up to America. If the U.S. makes Iraq democratic, it may force many of the other contries in the region to expand human rights and freedoms. There is no such benefit by turning North Korea democratic.

[ssibal]

This would not come up so much if people were informed about UN resolutions. Read Chapters 6 and 7 so you can understand why it is foolish to compare Israel to Iraq.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

[crackmonkey]

I think Israel always comes up because the anti-war crowd is stymied by the question of how to handle Saddam. Crying 'Israel' is the international political version of crying 'racism'. A simple way to beat up on your opponent and change the momentum of the argument, nothing more.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
Are Saddam, Kim, Osama or any enemy leaders really unbalanced madmen or is that just propaganda.

They are quite obviously unbalanced madmen.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I think Israel always comes up because the anti-war crowd is stymied by the question of how to handle Saddam. Crying 'Israel' is the international political version of crying 'racism'. A simple way to beat up on your opponent and change the momentum of the argument, nothing more.

I agree. But I was going to compare it to a little boy that gets in trouble then says "well what about Bobby?" Bobby will get dealt with differently

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Hazelip
This is some interesting reading that was sent to me by a friend of mine.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30960
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30884

I was shocked to find myself agreeing with this particular author. The second article is of specific relevance to this issue.

If you agree with the article, it would be because Iraq is a soft touch. The bully doesn't pick on the biggest kid, he picks on the smallest. Oh, and there is oil there.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you agree with the article, it would be because Iraq is a soft touch. The bully doesn't pick on the biggest kid, he picks on the smallest. Oh, and there is oil there.

"The" article?" There were three linked in that post.

Which particular article are you talking about?

[DrBenway]

from http://www.secularislam.org/articles/israeliraq.htm

quote:
"Nothing could be more ironic than the efforts of the anti-Semitic left to portray the impending US invasion of Iraq as motivated by a pro-Israeli bias of the Bush administration. It is just barely possible that such an invasion will work out well for the United States, but it is sure to work out badly for Israel."

[Troll]

Originally posted by DrBenway
from http://www.secularislam.org/articles/israeliraq.htm

quote:
"Nothing could be more ironic than the efforts of the anti-Semitic left to portray the impending US invasion of Iraq as motivated by a pro-Israeli bias of the Bush administration. It is just barely possible that such an invasion will work out well for the United States, but it is sure to work out badly for Israel."

Yeah, it's kinda funny that Israel hasn't been attacked by Iraq since the previous Gulf War, which they were not a part of. But it shows a good tie. They trusted the US to deal with the threat they faced. and let's face it, it went beyond threat, it was a reality, they were attacked. Guess the freaking bastards in the US ain't all that bad if you align yourself with them.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Oh, and there is oil there.

Iraq contributes less than 1% of our GNP. We get far more oil from Venezuela. Read the essays, they're pretty good.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Troll


Yeah, it's kinda funny that Israel hasn't been attacked by Iraq since the previous Gulf War, which they were not a part of
It depends on what you define as 'attacked'.

The Palestinian terrorists that have been killing innocent people in Israel have gotten financial support (and possibly weapons) from Iraq. Does that count as an 'attack'?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

It depends on what you define as 'attacked'.

The Palestinian terrorists that have been killing innocent people in Israel have gotten financial support (and possibly weapons) from Iraq. Does that count as an 'attack'?

Good point. I was talking about a direct attack with SCUDs but as we know Hussein openly supports funds to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Well golly gee, I guess we have a "threat to his neighbors" scenario afterall. ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Troll


Good point. I was talking about a direct attack with SCUDs but as we know Hussein openly supports funds to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Well golly gee, I guess we have a "threat to his neighbors" scenario afterall. ;)
Not only that, he does have links to other terrorists and other terrorist groups.

For example, while there aren't any firm links between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, there is evidence that:
- Some al Quaeda terrorists or related groups have set up in Iraq since the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan
- Some of the terrorists who were involved in the first WTC attack (the car bombing) are living free in Iraq, despite it being 'illegal' for any country to host them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

A couple of key differences....

- The Iraqi resolutions fell under a different set of rules. Someone mentioned they were 'chapter 7 enforcable' resolutions, wherease the Israeli resolutions were 'chapter 6 unenforcable' resolutions.
- Iraq had originally agreed to certain terms, and then broke the agreement. Basically, they agreed to disarm, and cooperate with inspectors. But they didn't. Israel, on the other hand, didn't agree to any special terms; the terms were basically forced on them. Its like the difference between me agreeing to buy a car from you, and you breaking the agreement (as in the case of Iraq), vs. me just telling you "You will sell me a car" without you indicating you would (as in the case if Israel)

The first point is to a large extent meaningless because the US would almost certainly veto any UN resolution regarding Israel that had teeth. It's a bonus that comes with US support, not a point that legitimises US support.

I just don't see the importance of the second point at all. Iraq agreed to terms with a metaphorical gun to its head. I don't see a meaningful sense in which the ceasefire terms were not "basically forced on them".

None of this means that Saddam Hussein is a lovely guy, of course. But as arguments presented for the position that Israel is OK and Iraq is evil, they don't work very well.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I just don't see the importance of the second point at all. Iraq agreed to terms with a metaphorical gun to its head. I don't see a meaningful sense in which the ceasefire terms were not "basically forced on them".

Ummm.... excuse me... Iraq invaded Kuwait. They had aspirations to make it another Iraqi province. They made the decision to invade, and if they hadn't, they would never have had the metaphorical 'gun to the head'.

Its a fact of life... the victors set terms, the defeated either accept them, or continue the conflict. Do you expect the loosers in the conflict to come out as strong or stronger than they did before the war?

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

None of this means that Saddam Hussein is a lovely guy, of course. But as arguments presented for the position that Israel is OK and Iraq is evil, they don't work very well.

Lets see... Israel is a democracy, Iraq is a dictatorship. There are more Muslims voting in open Israeli elections than there are in open Iraqi elections. Israel doesn't gas its own people (or the Palestinians), and in fact they go to great lengths to prevent civilian casulties. Israel has helped Islamic countries in the past (aid to Turkey following an earthquake). Iraq is more interested in supporting terrorist activities in Israel. And last time I checked, there weren't rape squads running around Israel.

So, do you think the 2 countries are really on equivalent moral ground?