loki09789 said:
Need we go back and check some of the other 'credible' sources that have been cited in past discussions.
I would say that this is at least a smidge more credible than some other discussion sources.
What happen to 'open mindedness' or 'being willing to consider all sides' or just plan 'being informed...?'
Looks to me like a case of "I don't like what it says so I won't pay it any heed."
Here is a potential piece of text/information that may have previously not been known to most/all of us. What do we do with this information now that it is shared: Deny, reject, or read it and at least 'be open' to the possibility that it could be a small piece of rational justification (though not enough to justify the whole shabang) for military action in Iraq? I thought that we were suppose to be open to Synthesizing when new information and opinions were presented....
Okay then, Let's take a closer look. When I looked earlier, I did not examine the article closely. The article has as a header 'United States House of Representatives', but the names were unfamiliar to me. I googled both authors, and found that Mr. Bodansky appears to have quite a bit of an agenda, although, I was just looking to see if he was a member of the United States House ... which he is not, and never has been. In fact, the first google link I hit had very prominately listed this sentence:
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, U. S. Congress, or any other branch of the U.S. Government.
http://ikashmir.org/Bodansky/
This certainly did not express confidence in Mr. Bodansky's writings. And yes, this sentence did not refer specifically to this article.
OK, let's look closer at the article.
Indeed, this crisis is escalating even as all key players continue to reassert their commitment to the US-inspired "Peace Process".
This is a rather odd sentence, the last sentence in the first paragraph. It looks to me a bit oxymoronic.
For example, in late October {1996}, a senior Jordanian diplomat warned that "Syria is preparing for a surprise military attack on Israel in the coming weeks."
Hmmm, I don't recall a surprise military attack on Israel in 1996 or 1997.
I continued to review the document, and it seems that everywhere the author looks, he sees people preparing attacks on Isreal. Of course, he does not examine any other possibilities for the listed activities, the only reason the countries could be taking the described actions is to attack Israel. Could the Iranian Military practice exercises without them being a pre-cursor to an Iranian/Isreali conflict? The author does not examine this thought.
The Author quotes an Egyptian Brigadiere General (Retired) who states Egypt must prepare for a conflict with Israel. This confused me, because I thought Egypt and Israel signed a treaty during the Carter years. Part of that treaty is that Egypt receives approximately 2 Billion dollars a year in United States aid money as long as they remain at peace with Israel ... although I could be wrong about that. The quote did seam out of context a bit, though. So I performed a Google on the General "
Mohammed Muawad Gad al-Moula".
The only reference to this gentleman in the Google databases are the very article in question. Nowhere else on the internet does Google find this General. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
OK. ... I read the article ... allies sharing information, governments agreeing to assist each other in the event of a war. Israel is going to attack Syria. Syria is preparing to attack Israel. Back and forth, forth and back.
To me, it seems the author is portraying ordinary inter-governmental activities and military actions in the most sinister possible ways. All of the activities described between Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt & Syria could just as easily substituted with United States, Canada, England, and Germany (at least in 1996).
Could this article have played a role in the decision to invade Iraq? Of course. There are probably tens of thousands of documents that could have
played a role, however, this article could just as easily be a chicken little crying 'The Sky is Falling'.
If it did play a role, we need to look at the judgement of our leaders. This article is talking mostly about Syria and her intentions, supported by Iraq, Iran, Egypt & Saudi Arabia. Of course, invading Iraq based on this article would be like ... well, invading Iraq because there were no good targets in Afghanistan.
Just my .02 ... but I still think this article was useless.
Mike
