What’s MSM? A conservative news station beloved by Ted Haggard?
Prove what? Your strawman?
No. I can’t prove that.
MSM =Mainstream Media.
Well, all right then, can you prove anything? Other than your sterling reputation as an unbiased observer and shrewd analyst, or The Leaders legendary candor, have you anything to offer but snark and buttwhistle?
Then bring.
Let me see if I have this right.
Sam punches Joe in the face. Joe punches Sam back. Joe then punches Rick, an innocent bystander. Joe then claims that he has every right to continue punching Rick, as Rick is now involved in the fight of Joe vs Sam and Rick?
That’s some interesting logic you have there.
Ya know, give Moto a break here. He has finally come around. Too many people are reading this as a smartass comment, when really, it’s just a statement of fact. I, for one, am happy that he considers the OP’s logic to be ironclad, and realizes that all kinds of voters are going to be seeing the folly of supporting Republicans. Bravo, Moto. Bravo.
Well, Rick punched back.
Butch, this is just the kind of thing which is why you guys never win any elections…
Can I also add that Sam vs. Rick would be better than Batman/Superman.
Where you lose it is in the phrase that I bolded. Take that out and it makes perfect sense:
“Sam punches Joe in the face. Joe punches Sam back. Joe then punches Rick, an innocent bystander. Rick is now involved in the fight of Joe vs Sam and Rick.”
If you later argued “Rick had nothing to do with the fight!” I would disagree. He was in it. If you said “Rick shouldn’t have been brought into the fight at the bar by Joe, because he was an innocent bystander.” Then you might have a point, depending on if that’s really true.
How about this:
Sam is walking down the street at night on his way home. His walk takes him through a bad neighborhood. One night Joe runs up to him and punches him in the face and runs off. From then on Sam decides if anyone runs up to attack him he’ll strike first and not be caught off guard again. The next night Rick runs up toward him and Sam strikes first, punching Rick.
Now, Rick might be an attacker, or he might just be a jogger. Maybe punching him was wrong. However, what is clear is that Sam wouldn’t have punched Rick if he hadn’t first been attacked by Joe. That attack changed Sam’s outlook and resulted in him striking first the next night.
Here’s the thing, though. The “War on Terror” is an extremely fuzzy concept that means different things to different people (or nothing at all). There are indeed violent Islamists out there who use terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals. And some of them do target civilians in The West as a means to achieving their goals. We are in a struggle aginst those groups, but I think war metaphor is overplayed. Still, they are trying to kill us and we are trying to kill them, so it’s not unreasonable to say we are “at war” with those groups. It’s not like our struggle against organized crime, since organized crime isn’t trying to just stir shit up and kill random people.
Could some of the Iraqi insurgency been seen as part of that violent Islamist movement? Probably. If Iraq were to fall apart and some sort of Sunni mini-state formed, it’s possible that groups within that mini-state would want to target us for attacks as part of their overall goal of regaining control over parts of Iraq that they felt should be “theirs”, as opposed to belonging to other factions (whether Shi’a or Kurd or something else).
And, of course, we do need to note that this state of affairs is completely the product of our invading that country in the first place. And the major hostilities going on there now is Iraqi against Iraqi, fighting for control of turf. It’s more likely that our soldiers dying over there are doing so because they are caught in the crossfire of the civil war, not by the few foreign fighters (or al Qaeda types) who are active.
Does that make our involvement in Iraq part of the “War on Terror”? I guess that depends more on how you define that concept than anything else. But I think it’s more confusing than helpful to use such an ill-defined term to cover actions that are largely outside any reasonable definition of that fuzzy term. What we’re doing in Iraq is trying to bring stabilization to a very unstable part of the M.E. That’s a lot bigger than the whole “War on Terror” anyway.
This seems to be essentially arguing that any military action the US chooses to undertake is “a part of the larger war on terror”, if the US chooses to describe it as such. But that makes the designation so vague as to be essentially meaningless.
If there were not in fact valid terrorism-related reasons adequate to justify the US invasion of Iraq, then when and how did the US war in Iraq become eligible for the category of “part of the larger war on terror”?
Is your classification simply based on the fact that once the US started the war in Iraq, terrorists became involved in it and used it as a talking point to promote terrorism? But as stoli pointed out, that sort of reaction would doubtless occur in pretty much any military conflict the US decided to start, in the Middle East or Fraggle Rock or anywhere else. If that’s your criterion for including a conflict in the “war on terror” category, then “war on terror” basically means nothing more than “all military conflicts involving the US”. I don’t see how that’s a helpful descriptor.
Yup, what John said.
This analogy fails because Iraq was not a random stranger that the US knew nothing about, and the US did not attack Iraq on the spur of the moment. Even the most virulent Bush-attackers don’t believe that. The US had considerable intelligence on Iraq’s intentions, even if some may have been flawed, and even if the Bush administration was selective in using the intelligence. And not only does going to war require preparation, but the US went through various diplomatic channels trying to drum up support for its forthcoming war.
In fact the Bush administration had a long-standing dislike of Saddam Hussein – even at a remote point in history he was on the US side – and needed little provocation to attack. The right story in analogy might be:
And Sam is an out-of-control fuckwit who needs to be locked up and heavily medicated, for he is a danger to himself and others.
Why you would present this analogy in support of the US is beyond me.
You just made an entire post towards me without a single insult. That’s a first. Hopefully the trend will continue!
I don’t see it being too broad. We’ve been involved in lots of smaller sub-conflicts large and small where they were all grouped together as parts of larger wars like World War II, or the Cold War. You could make the same argument about them.
Sure, I’ll grant you that I can see just about any conflict we start these days could be considered part of the war on terror depending on the circumstances. If we invaded Iran tomorrow with the intent of stopping thier nuke program then I’d argue that would definitely be a part of the war on terror. If we invaded Panama tomorrow to gain control of the canal then I would agrue that’s not part of the war on terror.
It’s telling that I need to use an absurd scenario to give an example of a war that would be outside the scope of the war on terror. That’s just because the war on terror is the war that’s going on right now. You’d similarly have to stretch to come up with an example of a place we could attack in 1942 and have it not be considered part of WWII.
:shrug:
The analogy isn’t intended to support the decision to invade Iraq. I went out of my way specfically not to support it or oppose it in the analogy. It’s simply meant to illustrate the connection between Iraq and the larger overall war on terror.
Supreme God Emperor and Sacred King, Divine Maximum Overlord and Absolute Universal Master. (But I’m only planning on one term, because I intend to fully exercise the droit du seigneur and I’m not as young as I once was.)
Please explain how. (You haven’t, yet, not in any of your posts or tortured analogies.)
Hmmm.
What’s your position on the issue of same-sex bowling?
Sure, but the only reason they are “part of” the war is because we dragged them into it. Terrorism wasn’t our reason, it was our excuse. Had 9/11 not happened, we’d be fighting Iraq in the War on Saddam. Had Sweden bombed us with tiny meatballs, we’d now be fighting Iraq in the War on Meatballs.