Although, perhaps it could be argued that Bush has allowed the “war on terrorism” to enter Iraq. While terrorist groups had no trace of a foothold there a year ago, they sure as hell do now!
Holy crap, are you people really arguing this intensely over one ambiguous sentence? Isn’t this how wars get started?
The Pit never ceases to entertain me. It’s like watching monkeys fling doodoo at each other and screeching over possession of a banana… or whatever monkeys fight over.
- Mike
Several places, actually. Like later on in the very post I’m quoting, where you say:
If the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror (which you and Bush certainly are convinced of), then how can you deny that you’re making a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq? 9/11 triggered the war on terror. Surely you’re not denying that?
Well then. By extention, your claim that the war in Iraq is part of TWAT (bravo, Eve!) constitutes a claim that 9/11 and Iraq are somehow related.
If you want to support the war in Iraq yet still maintain your intellectual honesty, I suggest you start admitting that Iraq had fuck all to do with 9/11, and hence is not part of TWAT.
Coldfire is right. The war in Iraq is classic opportunism. That’s why there’s no war in North Korea, and no war in Saudi Arabia.
I was recently dismayed to learn that President Bush said of this reasoning that “We’re not going to cut and run like we did in '91.” That is chilling in its full implications.
[quote]
Starving Artist: Starving Artist: You people are so blinded by indignation, scorn, your own perceived superiority and rage that you can’t even interpret correctly words in front of your very own eyes.
I confess to being indignant, scornful, superior, and enraged. Even blind in one eye.
The phrase like the Second World War modifies our present conflict. (What is it that’s like the Second World War? Answer: Our present conflict. (Grammatically speaking, that is correct. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. What is it that’s like a good neighbor?) So he is saying that both the Second World War and our present conflict began with an attack on the U.S.
I am having trouble seeing the ambiguity. Could someone explain the other interpretation to me?
I suspect that his speech writer knew better and certainly the cadets knew better. But a “theme” has been planted in some receptive minds. Keep in mind that President Bush, in the remainder of his speech, does not appear to be limiting himself to Iraq when he talks of our present conflict. He is talking about Eve’s TWAT.
Some things that bother me about this speech:
I think the President tries to crush dissent in this country and tried to even on his trip to London. Many of his supporters seemed to feel comfortable in calling those opposed to the war “traitors” or describing them as “unpatriotic.” He didn’t do much, if anything, to discourage this name-calling. In fact, he dismissed protestors as “a focus group.”
Contrary to what the President suggests, terrorists acts did not begin with September 11, 2001 – not even for this country.
[quote]
The terrorists of our day are, in some ways, unlike the enemies of the past. The terrorist ideology has not yet taken control of a great power like Germany or the Soviet Union. And so the terrorists have adopted a strategy different from the gathering of vast and standing armies. They seek, instead, to demoralize free nations with dramatic acts of murder. They seek to wear down our resolve and will by killing the innocent and spreading fear and anarchy. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, so they can threaten or attack even the most powerful nations.
Excuse me, I seem to recall dramatic acts of murder by the Japanese in China, by the Nazis in Europe, Stalin in the USSR – just for starters. Terrorists aren’t so different from enemies of the past when they kill the innocent and spread fear and anarchy. And the USA kills the innocent and spreads fear. We have weapons of mass destruction. We threaten and attack.
Sweet Mother of God.
Eve, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do. 
That’s what is really so creepy about this speech. The President lists four strategies for TWAT. This is the first step:
He is not just talking about Iraq. He appears to be talking about the potential for preemptive strikes globally. And he goes on to describe his new doctrine for this strategy:
I don’t think it is splitting hairs to say that he is threatening the possibility of military action against countries that provide support or sanctuary to anyone he deems to be a terrorist.
Is this where I came in?
Oi. Lay off the extinct sea-cows-with-legs, man.
Don’t forget, Zoe…you have to turn that tin-foil hat 30 degrees every hour to prevent the mind-control rays from eating through…
The analogy makes perfect sense.
America’s military entry into WWII was due to Pearl Harbor. America’s broad military entry into TWO(thanks very much, Eve, but 'll pass)T was due to 9-11. Both were unprovoked attacks on American soil that conspiracy theorists claim the administration allowed to happen.
America attacked not only the country directly responsible (Japan, Afghanistan), but also - and with greater force - an nation allied with said country but not directly responsible for the attacks (Germany, Iraq).
Yes?
No. Iraq and Al-Qaeda weren’t allied, and Iraq was a pitiful whipped puppy militarily, not a massive war engine already controlling large chunks of its home continent.
In the same way that the war on Germany was part of WWII, even though Germany was not involved in Pearl Harbor. And in the same way that WWII was triggered by Germany’s invasion of Poland, and yet the US began her involvement in WWII by declaring war on Japan.
OK. By the same logic, Germany and Pearl Harbor were somehow related.
Well, then you need to maintain your intellectual honesty by admitting that Germany had fuck-all to do with Pearl Harbor, and hence was not part of WWII.
It is possible to have more than one enemy at a time. Just as the US was at war with Italy during WWII, even though Italy was not involved in either Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Poland.
The war on terror involves a number of enemies. Some were involved in 9/11; others are enemies of the US for other reasons. Remember the “axis of evil”? North Korea had nothing to do with 9/11, but constitutes a threat to Asia and therefore, indirectly, to the interests of the US. Iran was not involved in 9/11, but also constitutes a nuclear threat to the ME region. Hell, you would be hard put to show that the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was a direct attack on the US, but most agree that the first Gulf War was justifiable.
I agree with Starving Artist. You people are letting your hatred of Bush get out of hand.
Regards,
Shodan
Although I think you have misinterpreted Spavined Gelding’s post, here are some stats that you might want to consider:
According the the United States Library of Congress Country Studies,
-
95 percent of Iraqis are Muslim.
-
Egypt has been primarily Islamic for 1,000 years.
-
The “overwhelming majority” (their words, not mine) of Iranians–at least 90 percent of the total population–are Muslims who adhere to Shia Islam.
-
The “vast majority” (again, their words) of the people of Saudi Arabia are Sunni Muslims.
You can check other countries here:
Shodan, the problem is that we have a President who is claiming that Italy invaded Poland.
Are you unaware that Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941?
Darn you, Demo. Was just rushing in with that factoid, just to find you sitting there, all smug and Aussie.
I hate it when you guys sober up.
The Pope, supreme Pontiff of all Catholics, lived in Italy. (Vatican City, my ass! It’s still Italy.)
Adolf Hitler was Catholic. There is no proof, none whatsoever, that the Pope did not direct his vassal, Hitler, to invade Poland.
Q.E.D.
(No need to thank me, Shodan. Glad to help.)
Hey! That’s not fair! I really am a little nuts. Be gentle.
Yes, we know that. But that is not really what he literally said.
You and I agree. Check for tinfoil.
Maybe I should be more direct.
We had one set of reasons for being at war with Japan and another set of reasons for being at war with Germany. I’m not a historian, but I think that we didn’t confuse the two fronts. We didn’t blame Germany for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Also, the war with Germany resulted in fewer Nazis, not more.
elucidator, I’m writing a new piece of music to be used at your next family get-together. It’s called Oy Veh Maria Mio as is written in a pentatonic scale. I hope you are happy.
I can’t think of a single time that Bush blamed 9/11 directly or primarily on Iraq, yet people on this board keep claiming it over and over again. We did not go to war with Iraq because it perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Similarly, I have never held that we went to war with Iraq because they perpetrated 9/11, yet people on this board extrapolate that I do every single time I say something pro-Bush or in favor of the war on terrorism.
Thanks to Shodan for your response to Coldfire. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The war on terror is being fought on many fronts and in many ways. It is being fought in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Germany, France, Italy, the U.S. itself, etc. The war in Iraq is only a part of the war on terror.