Israel/Obama/Polls

[Officer of Engineers]

Either Israel had (and passed on) faulty intel, which is understandable, or she intentionally passed on false/faulty intel, which meant Israel actively goaded the US into attacking. It can't have done both at the same time. Either it knew the info was faulty, or it didn't.

Wrong. There is a third option which you're not seeing. Israel was blinded by her own biases. She wanted Iraq to have WMDs and saw nothing else.

When the rest of the world was not convinced and they were right, then how the hell did you reach your own conclusions?

[Officer of Engineers]

Look Ben, if you look through this forum, you will see my own soul searching decision on supporting the Iraq War. I was torned and I was not convinced that Saddam was not contained. It was not until Gen MacKenzie who said the evidence for Saddam having WMDs was a hell of a lot stronger than the case for the Kosovo War. It was then that I started looking for evidence to support my view, to support Gen Mackenzie's views. In short, I had my biases.

To this day, I remained convinced that I would not have reached any other conclusions that Saddam had WMDs even with today's evidence. I know of my biases. I know where I went wrong but even with today's evidence, I would not have changed my mind that Saddam had WMDs.

I can live with the consequences of being wrong and doing something ... but I cannot live with the consequences of being right and doing nothing. There is my bias. I wanted war to deny Saddam any WMD even when he had none. I cannot live with a peace leaving him the chance of having WMD even when he had none.

And there is the bias you're not getting. Israel was not about to say Saddam had no WMDs. She was wrong but she could not afford to be right. THAT IS WHY SHE HELPED GOADED THE US INTO WAR.

[Parihaka]

I'm surprised Erdogan could hear Bibi over the sound of teeth grinding. Would love to know what Obama promised/threatened to get this done. be curious to see if it yields longer term results.

Whatever it was that was promised/threatened, it must have been big.

Erdogan's response has been to refuse ambassadors, continue the absentia trials against the Israeli generals, claim Netanyahu promised to lift the blockade of Gaza and has arranged a visit to Gaza next month whilst briefing Khaled Mashaal.

Methinks Obama hung Netanyahu out to dry for the fun of it, perhaps a bit of utu for Netanyahu's endorsement of Romney

[Bigfella]

Whatever it was that was promised/threatened, it must have been big.

Erdogan's response has been to refuse ambassadors, continue the absentia trials against the Israeli generals, claim Netanyahu promised to lift the blockade of Gaza and has arranged a visit to Gaza next month whilst briefing Khaled Mashaal.

Methinks Obama hung Netanyahu out to dry for the fun of it, perhaps a bit of utu for Netanyahu's endorsement of Romney

Perhaps. Netanyahu certainly deserves it if that is so: big boys games, big boys rules. However, I wonder if there is more to this than the simple pleasure of publically humiliating Bibi (a worthy goal, don't get me wrong). I'm wondering if this gives Obama some extra leverage to push Erdogan to stop being such a dick in relation to Israel. However much Erdogan might want to see himself as some sort of regional bigwig, he still needs to keep the US sweet to really pack a punch.

[Parihaka]

Perhaps. Netanyahu certainly deserves it if that is so: big boys games, big boys rules. However, I wonder if there is more to this than the simple pleasure of publically humiliating Bibi (a worthy goal, don't get me wrong). I'm wondering if this gives Obama some extra leverage to push Erdogan to stop being such a dick in relation to Israel. However much Erdogan might want to see himself as some sort of regional bigwig, he still needs to keep the US sweet to really pack a punch.

Possibly, though I doubt it. Erdogan has already stated clearly that he's an idiot when it comes to Israel and all his actions post apology, as pointed out in my post, have been to escalate the schism.
I'm sure Obama told Netanyahu that a deal was made, but I'm not at all sure Erdogan was in the loop.

[bigross86]

Wrong. There is a third option which you're not seeing. Israel was blinded by her own biases. She wanted Iraq to have WMDs and saw nothing else.

When the rest of the world was not convinced and they were right, then how the hell did you reach your own conclusions?

Again, Israel could have been blinded, but that doesn't mean she did it on purpose, which means she didn't actively goad the US into Iraq, it passed on the info in good faith.

[bigross86]

Look Ben, if you look through this forum, you will see my own soul searching decision on supporting the Iraq War. I was torned and I was not convinced that Saddam was not contained. It was not until Gen MacKenzie who said the evidence for Saddam having WMDs was a hell of a lot stronger than the case for the Kosovo War. It was then that I started looking for evidence to support my view, to support Gen Mackenzie's views. In short, I had my biases.

To this day, I remained convinced that I would not have reached any other conclusions that Saddam had WMDs even with today's evidence. I know of my biases. I know where I went wrong but even with today's evidence, I would not have changed my mind that Saddam had WMDs.

I can live with the consequences of being wrong and doing something ... but I cannot live with the consequences of being right and doing nothing. There is my bias. I wanted war to deny Saddam any WMD even when he had none. I cannot live with a peace leaving him the chance of having WMD even when he had none.

And there is the bias you're not getting. Israel was not about to say Saddam had no WMDs. She was wrong but she could not afford to be right. THAT IS WHY SHE HELPED GOADED THE US INTO WAR.

I have no problem with Israel believing a worst-case scenario, being blinded by our own biases or whatever else. But when you say goad, you are claiming Israel intentionally passed on false/falsified intel to the US in order to convince them to go to war. I'm not denying the intel was passed or even that it could have been faulty intel. But it was passed on in good faith, with Israeli intel believing every word that was in there. Therefore, you can't say that Israel goaded the US into Iraq.

[Parihaka]

To me the key is would the US and Britain have gone to war in Iraq if they hadn't had any intel from Israel. If the answer is yes, the point is moot.

[bigross86]

Either way the point is moot. US intelligence would have double checked any piece of information given to them by any foreign power, including Israel. To not do so would be criminally negligent.

[Officer of Engineers]

I have no problem with Israel believing a worst-case scenario, being blinded by our own biases or whatever else. But when you say goad, you are claiming Israel intentionally passed on false/falsified intel to the US in order to convince them to go to war. I'm not denying the intel was passed or even that it could have been faulty intel. But it was passed on in good faith, with Israeli intel believing every word that was in there. Therefore, you can't say that Israel goaded the US into Iraq.

That is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Men died because of a Israeli mistake, whether intentional or not. At the very least, an self evaluation is required. I did not let myself off the hook for this mistake. I certainly ain't going to give Israel a by.

[bigross86]

Whether Israel did or did not do an internal house cleaning following the mistake is something we may never know, but like I said before, for the US to accept Israel's intel as gospel truth would have been criminally negligent. Therefore, they must have gone over it again with their own people and reached their own (same) conclusions.

Colonel, I'm not denying that there was faulty intel, or even that Israel passed on faulty intel, believing it was truth. My problem is with your assertion that Israel goaded the US into action. If Israeli intelligence had no idea the intelligence was bad, then logically they could not have goaded the US into attacking Iraq. Only if we first assume that Israel knew the intel was bad, in which case the US intelligence community was also negligent for not catching onto the intel being bad, only then can we accept your assertion Israel goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

That's my only problem, your assertion that Israel goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

[Officer of Engineers]

That's my only problem, your assertion that Israel goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

Look Ben, Israeli intel caused the deaths of good American men. Israel is responsible for passing on that intel. You call it good faith or not. It does NOT change the fact that Israeli intel backed by the fact that Israel wanted war and pushed towards war helped cause the deaths of those men. Just as my support in some small part did also so. To state that Israel is not responsible is 100% horse puckey.

Professionalism DEMANDS that Israel take a good strong look at her part in causing the deaths of those good American men AND accepts responsibility for it.

Your attitude is an indication of "it's not Israeli men who died, so not my problem, not my fault."

[bigross86]

Look Ben, Israeli intel caused the deaths of good American men. Israel is responsible for passing on that intel. You call it good faith or not. It does NOT change the fact that Israeli intel backed by the fact that Israel wanted war and pushed towards war helped cause the deaths of those men. Just as my support in some small part did also so. To state that Israel is not responsible is 100% horse puckey.

I'm not denying any of that, aside from the bolded part

Professionalism DEMANDS that Israel take a good strong look at her part in causing the deaths of those good American men AND accepts responsibility for it.

Again, you or I will never know if Israeli intelligence did or didn't investigate the causes behinf the faulty intel or not

Your attitude is an indication of "it's not Israeli men who died, so not my problem, not my fault."

That couldn't be further from the truth, and you know that.

Once again, all I'm saying, is that Israel did not GOAD the US into attacking Iraq. I'm not denying anything else, and I agree with you in many places. The only problem I have is your assertion that Israel goaded the US into attacking. Using simple logic and your own statements, that assertion contradicts other things you say.

There are two options:

I) Israel passed on bad intel by accident for whatever reason. The US corroborated this intel with intel of their own and confirmed Israel's opinion. The US went to war. --> Conclusion: Israel could not have actively goaded the US into attacking Iraq. Logically it just doesn't make sense

II) Israel passed on bad intel on purpose. The US corroborated this intel with intel of their own and confirmed Israel's opinion. The US went to war. --> Conclusion: Israel actively goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that Israel passed bad intel on purpose, and that the US intelligence community was too dumb to catch the false info. If Israel didn't know the intel was bad for whatever reason, whether it be a dirty agent, Iraqi maskirovka, Israeli intel bias, self-fulfilling prophecy or any other reason, unless Israel actively knew that the intel was bad, then logically Israel could not have goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

Occam's Razor would say that it's far more likely that the Israeli and US intelligence communities made mistakes as opposed to Israeli intelligence being able to gin up such amazing bad info that was good enough to fool the entire US intelligence community.

[Officer of Engineers]

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that Israel passed bad intel on purpose, and that the US intelligence community was too dumb to catch the false info. If Israel didn't know the intel was bad for whatever reason, whether it be a dirty agent, Iraqi maskirovka, Israeli intel bias, self-fulfilling prophecy or any other reason, unless Israel actively knew that the intel was bad, then logically Israel could not have goaded the US into attacking Iraq.

Occam's Razor would say that it's far more likely that the Israeli and US intelligence communities made mistakes as opposed to Israeli intelligence being able to gin up such amazing bad info that was good enough to fool the entire US intelligence community.

Only FOUR countries thought the intel was good enough for war. If you cannot find fault with that, then you're not getting the point.

[bigross86]

Colonel, you keep ignoring my point. My one and only problem is with your claim Israel goaded the US into Iraq. Read my last post. There are only two options. Which option do you think more likely? I agree the intel is bad, I agree Israel came to the wrong conclusions. But your assertion Israel goaded the US into the Iraq war based on the faulty intelligence is also fallacious.