I don’t think this remark applies to me or was directed toward me; but in case it was, I apologize for the oversight and for failing to observe the appropriate conventions of the Pit. I will attempt to remedy the error in future postings, you fuckwit.
But then “war on terror” doesn’t really mean anything specific beyond “wars going on right now”. I think that BrainGlutton’s complaint in the OP comes from the position that “war on terror” ought to be used to mean something more specific: namely, military conflicts that are directly and overwhelmingly focused on reducing terrorist attacks and eliminating terrorist organizations. As John Mace pointed out, the Iraq war definitely ain’t that. Rather, it’s primarily about attempting to control sectarian/regional conflict in what is largely a failed state.
And as I noted in post #3, a growing majority of the American public apparently agrees with BrainGlutton’s definition of “war on terror” rather than yours. Your extremely broad definition of “war on terror” as covering essentially all realistic scenarios of contemporary military conflict, including the war in Iraq, does not match up with what most Americans think the term “war on terror” means.
If I support you, can I be your Vice-Emperor and Chief Underlord, with first dibs on the Droit du Seigneur after you end your term, or die of exhaustion?
I disagree with this. However, even if I concede this to be true just for the sake of argument, it doesn’t change the fact that Iraq is part of the war on terror.
That you don’t like it doesn’t make it not so.
You really think that Bush would have been able to get the support to invade Iraq had 9/11 not happened? You’re entitled to your opinion and of course there is no way to prove this without the technology from Star Trek. But, I think it’s obvious that without the attacks on 9/11 we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
**Debaser **has already conceded that point, so it sounds like you are now agreeing with him… What difference does it make how it got that way if it is, in fact, that way now?
The question we should be asking ourselves is does it edify or obscure things if we call the war in Iraq part of the War on Terror? I think it obscures things. Sure, there is lots of “terror” going on in Iraq, but it isn’t folks plotting to use terror on the US “homeland” (to use a term I hate).
Why not? Went to war with Spain simply to steal their stuff. Went to war with Grenada for no reason whatsoever (By the by, how is that Grenadan War Memorial coming along?..)
What makes you think they couldn’t have cooked up a war with Iraq? Saddam was our collective villain, a designated devil to embody the wickedness of those who oppose peace and freedom (us). For a while it was Qadaffy Duck, then it was the Ayatollah Khomeini. For a couple days it was Manuel (“Craterface”) Noriega, then back to the Ayatollah. Then Saddam.
“Late last night, Iraqi torpedo boats attacked an American destroyer in the Persian Gulf, in the Al Tonqueen Bay…”
I think to a certain extent it is true that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because we have made it so. But I am reluctant to concede the rhetorical point because it adds post-facto legitimacy to the action which I feel it does not deserve.
Most people using the War on Terror to describe our actions in Iraq are doing so not to be descriptive or accessible but to engage in revisionism for political gain.
So I am temporarily breaking with my typical pro-simplicity stance.
I agree. And such obfuscation is harmful to having a meaningful debate on our nation’s policy, because it frames the argument at the outset with the assumption that war in Iraq will reduce terrorist attacks on the U.S., which may not in fact be the case.
To me, it’s equivalent to framing discussions of civil liberties and the limits of police power in terms of a War on Crime. Questioning whether officers should have broken into someone’s home with shaky evidence, or been allowed to search all the witnesses to a robbery, or run over jay-walking pedestrians would be hampered by the pointless debate over whether or not crime is in fact bad and why would you question police when they’re just trying to fight crime and why do you like crime so much anyway?
What you call fact is what we’re debating here. We’ve hardly established it as fact.
How is our presence in Iraq stopping terrorists from planning an attack? Bush His Own Divine Self has claimed that the WOT cannot be fought by conventional means. He has claimed that terrorists do not use conventional weapons, nor are they necessarily contained by international borders. But we’re over there fighting a conventional war with conventional weapons, in a country with borders. By Bush’s own definition, the Iraq war is not a war on terror. And of course, it was not designed to stop terrorism, it was designed to take out a government.
Maybe, maybe not. But the planning was there. The desire was there. All that was needed was an excuse.
That’s how it was sold to us. I can sell you a can of stink-pretty that I guarantee will make you attractive to supermodels. That doesn’t make it anything more than a can of Raid.
Did you read the rest of my post? The reason that some shit sticks is that you can sell it to the people who typically buy fertilizer. Recognizing that it could be seen as a compelling argument does not amount to conceding the point.
Yes, I know that. It’s probably a big factor in why Bush was able to win in '04-- framing the Iraq war as being part of the “War on Terror”. Few and fewer people are buying the bill of goods these days.
Of course the context of this thread is whether the MSM should use that term wrt the Iraq situation. No, I don’t think they should-- for the reasons given.
Of course, isn’t even Bush now using some new term to “frame the debate” in a different way? Isn’t it supposed to be the “Long War” or the “War against Islamic Fascism” or some other meaningless slogan?
I’m sure you knew as much…I’m well aware you’re not exactly a trained chimp, John – unlike others, but that’s neither here nor there. I just brought it up, partly for the same reasons you gave, I happen to be sick and tired of the endless (and meaningless) sloganeering that’s supposed to have some intrinsic value that will open our eyes to The Big Picture – yet again another worthless piece of rhetoric.
Should the MSM use the term? Well, being the Liberal Scum that we all know they are, surely you realize their job is to kowtow to every presidential decree. IOW, hell no! But it is what it is: if it sells, they’ll go with it. After all, let’s not forget that beyond all the horrors and needless deaths this invasion has caused, there are a number of fat cats that have gotten mighty fatter. And that, my friend, I believe is the bottom line. Doesn’t matter how disgusting you or I might find that to be.
Eisenhower nailed it in his farewell speech, didn’t he?
