RedFury, GorillaMan, I see we’ve now come full circle and we’re back to the point that you people are so blinded by your disdain for and hatred of Bush and his policies that you can’t think straight and/or interpret correctly words in front of your own eyes.
For **GorillaMan ** to claim there’s no such thing as the War On Terror is ridiculous, and it’s even more ridiculous to think anyone who is cognizant of it has fallen hook, line and sinker for Bush’s line. If you truly think there’s no real war on terror, we have nothing further to discuss. You might as well want me to argue with someone claiming 2+2=5. It’s ridiculous and there’s no point in arguing it further.
And RedFury, when I speak of Italy and Germany in terms of the war on terror, I’m speaking of them as only a couple of the countries around the globe who are battling terror on their own by searching out and arresting terrorists in their own countries, battling them face-to-face whenever it’s necessary, freezing their assets, etc. It has nothing to do with whatever Bush may be doing to try to recruit their support regarding Iraq. And with regard to the war in Iraq, certainly it is the main point of contention around the world right now, but it is far from the only facet of the war on terrorism. I don’t know if you read my previous post in response to **Coldfire’s ** questions about how I view the war in Iraq and it’s role or potential role in regard to the terrorist threat to the U.S., but if you did you know my thinking in regard to it. Your response however makes me doubt that you’ve read it. Otherwise, there’d be no talk of “blending” Iraq into the war on terror.
In short, you people are once again extrapolating all sorts of things into Bush’s statement in the OP based on what you think he really meant, what he’s really trying to do, or on your opinion of what a stupid or cunning and manipulative asshole you happen to think he is while completely missing and/or ignoring what he really said. Your posts, and your ways of thinking, only go to illustrate this further.
To clarify - obviously, there are numerous battles against terrorism throughout the world, some of which affect us directly. But it is not a war. (Have you read 1984?)
I started this thread because Bush was comparing D-Day to TWAT. And obviously he will make as much political import of his attendance in Normandy as he possibly can. But you can guarantee there won’t be the same scenes of friendship with Chirac as we saw today with Berlusconi. And the pope is a different matter entirely - appearing subservient to JP will go down well with the Catholic voters back home.
Some times, what with all the tangents, high-jacks, side tracks and general hostility and animosity, it’s hard to tell what the initial grump was. With our friend Milroyj batting clean up to Starving and Debaser I figure this thread is wholly in the toilet.
Some who have participated in this thread have misunderstood others perhaps because they haven’t read all of President Bush’s speech at the Air Force Academy graduation. He draws several parallels throughout his speech.
He may have had the best of intentions in drawing these parallels, but it certainly rubbed me the wrong way. I thought that it exploited the attention and honor which is being paid to the G.I. Generation – especially the veterans – during this period. But that is my opinion.
One thing that is made clear in the speech is that he wants those who hear or read his speech to believe that the present conflict refers to the war on terror – past, present and future. Parts of his speech are absolutely chilling. I don’t want to misquote him, but I believe that it was in this speech that he spoke of global first strike capabilities. If I am mistaken, then I apologize ahead of time. (And I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread.)
If you haven’t read the speech, it is worth your time and effort.
Open your eyes.
Shodan, your apology is accepted. Thanks. I believe that you were addressing two different issues in my comments. One was whether or not Bush claimed that Iraq was involved with 9/11. The other was about my perception of the meaning of the present conflict.
It was the second issue on which you were mistaken in your representation of my views.
Do you really not know this, or is this a rhetorical question?
The short answer is, “because Iraq failed to live up to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire”. As Bush stated very explicitly in his speech announcing the invasion:
You will notice that the President’s speech makes no mention of any Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Nor did any of the UN resolutions he also refers to.
As I mentioned to Coldfire, it is possible to have more than one enemy at a time, and it is possible to have more than one reason to be enemies. Thus it is possible to include the other members of the “Axis of Evil” in the war on terror, regardless of whether or not they colluded in 9/11.
Obviously. Yes, the “present conflict” refers to the war on terror. The war on terror includes more than simply the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or are you disputing this?
The actual quote you may be reacting to is this:
Funnily enough, I do not find the idea of being proactive rather than reactive to be “chilling”.
Although, as I have said elsewhere, if Bush had taken sufficient steps to prevent 9/11, all the Bush-bashers would have been accusing him of being a fascist, and screaming for his impeachment.
And RedFury, do you have any cites that actually demonstrate what is being claimed? What we are looking for is an actual quote in which Bush claims that Saddam was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. If all you have is statements about evidence of connections between Iraq and other terrorist groups, that is not the same thing. Besides, such statements are not lies, but seem to have evidence backing them up.
Unless, as I suspect, Starving Artist is correct, and we will simply revolve endlessly around the Bush-bashers claiming that their interpretations of what Bush “really meant” is the only possible correct one, and the plain sense of his speeches means nothing.
As he mentions, simply howling that “Iraq isn’t part of the war on terror because Bush lied when he accused Saddam of planning 9/11” is silly because
[ul][li]Iraq is part of the war on terror[/li][li]Bush did not accuse Saddam of planning 9/11[/li][li]Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11[/ul][/li]
Nations or organizations are subjects of the war on terror if they present a terrorist threat to their neighbors, US interests, or the civilized world in general. As did Afghanistan and Iraq. As does North Korea. As did/does Libya and Iran. Therefore all those nations are part of the war on terror, even though only Afghanistan refused to hand bin Laden over to justice.
And therefore, in answer to a question from Coldfire:
I feel it is entirely justified. Because it seems screamingly obvious that Iraq (and North Korea and Iran and Libya and others) are part of the war on terror, and deserve to be so.
I cannot honestly see any reason why you want to make the distinction. If you want to insist that only those involved in 9/11 can possibly be spoken of as terrorists, that does not seem to be either accurate or a useful device. Terrorists are terrorists. Terrorist organizations are terrorists. Terrorist regimes are terrorists. Those who support and encourage terrorism are terrorists. al-Queda are terrorists. The Taliban were terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. Kim is a terrorist.
What is the point of saying, “No, we can’t do anything about nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula because Kim was not directly involved in 9/11”? People don’t stop being enemies of the US and of freedom simply because they weren’t on the 9/11 planes. Iran doesn’t stop trying to get nuclear arms because most of the hijackers were Saudis.
I suspect your reaction of shouting angrily at the TV may have to do more with your dislike of Bush than a desire to be - I don’t know what, accurate maybe. But that is in common with most in this thread.
A lot of Bush-bashers hate everything Bush says and does because they hate him. And therefore they misunderstand everything he says and does, because they hate him. And thus they hate him more.
And that is a mistake. Because he is not always wrong.
And thanks to Starving Artist (and Debaser and milroyj) for carrying the thread forward while I was wasting my time working.
I see. Thankyou. I still seem to be missing something, though. Perhaps you could explain how Iraq falls under the “War on Terror” label. There must, surely, be some kind of link to terrorism? What is it?
The cease-fire agreement, as I am sure by now you know, was taken under UN auspices. The United States did not sign a seperate accord with Iraq, hence, Iraq had no direct treaty obligation with the US.
The US is a member of the UN, not the other way round. If Canada should abrogate a fishing treaty with the US, is it your contention that Tennessee is thereby entitled to declare war on Canada?
Not to mention the mildly embarassing fact that we have found no such weapons for Saddam to declare or destroy. How, precisely, would you declare or destroy an Invisible Pink Unicorn of Death?
You declare, with what appears to be a straight face, that the war with Saddam was justified because of his failure to comply. How, precisely, might he have complied? Surely you are not trying to imply that if Saddam offered us documents attesting to the destruction of all such weapons that they would have been accepted at face value? How, precisely, would you have Saddam prove that he had complied?
What is the correct procedure for the destruction of non-existent weapons?
Hope you don’t mind if I also take a shot at refuting your arguments. The following quotes are from your post # 137 on page 3 of this thread. Starting here:
Speaking for myself, I have no problem understanding this view, quite the contrary. In fact, most of the pro-war posters with whom I’ve argued over the last couple of years are well aware of the fact that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and support the war for other reasons.
However, as noted by Red Fury, 70% of the American public does appear to believe that Iraq was in some way involved with 9/11. This is a separate issue from your own personal rationale for promoting the war. So is the accusation, supported by numerous examples in this thread, that this false belief is at least partially due to purposefully misleading rhetoric on the part of the administration. To quote from Fury’s cite:
That last claim, in particular, is hard to interpret as anything other than a purposeful lie: the Hussein regime was never “allied” with al-Qaida. Continuing:
Here, Bush is clearly linking the invasion of Iraq as a “focused, deliberate, and proportionate” response to 9/11, and insinuating that Iraq had in some way “supported” the attack – despite the fact, as you argue yourself, no real link exists between 9/11 and Iraq.
It is entirely possible to believe in the necessity of the war against Iraq while conceding that the administration employed misleading rhetoric to garner public support for it, by the way. There are even posters here who believe that the administration was justified in deceiving the American public in this manner.
I am discussing what Bush really said in his speeches, and what he appears to be trying to convey to the country.
Very well, then. Let’s tease this issue apart.
First, can you tell me, when you use the acronym “WMD,” what sort of “WMD” are you talking about? Were you primarily worried that Hussein’s regime would supply al-Qaida with chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons?
Secondly, how do you square this concern with the knowledge we now have, that is to say, with the fact that we now know Iraq did not possess “WMDs”? I mean, obviously, if Iraq didn’t possess “WMDs,” then they can’t very well pass them on to al-Qaida, can they?
Finally, how do you respond the expert consensus that such a scenario is highly unlikely? For example, consider this passage from WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, a report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
Continuing to follow your line of argumentation:
In point of fact, it would appear that the US and its allies had actually been very effective in preventing Iraq from developing “WMDs” prior to the war. What leads you to believe that the continued pressure of sanctions and inspections would have been an ineffective deterrent, knowing what we know now?
Do you have any sort of evidence, or even expert opinion, to support this belief – or is it merely an article of faith on your part?
In my opinion, the human rights issue was the only real justification for military action. But even this has to be put into perspective. As much as I abhor the suffering imposed upon Iraqis by Saddam Hussein’s regime, I do not think that I would be personally willing to risk my life to change it. I certainly would never be willing to sacrifice the life of my son. Since I’m not willing to lay my own life on the line for the sake of Iraq, it would be hypocritical for me to advocate that sacrifice to others.
Still, I agree with you that this was a strong reason to take action against Iraq.
I doubt it. And what are the consequences if the project fails? Who will bear the brunt of those consequences?
This argument is really a stretch. To begin with, Israel is probably less secure as a result of the Iraqi invasion and resulting chaos. But leaving that aside, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not a security issue for Israel; rather, it is a religious one.
Name one historical example in which a population overthrew a repressive state apparatus, and replaced with a “open” democracy, because they were envious of a neighboring democratic state.
