yeah, that’s what I was gonna say.
I don’t believe Shodan or I are saying there is no difference between WWII and TWAT. There are many ways in which they are different. However, this goes to demonstrate even further my observation that many of the posters to this thread are so blinded by their distrust and anger regarding Bush that they can’t think straight. Has the debate now become that we (or Bush) are claiming that WWII and the war on (or *against * :D) terror are the same? This is ridiculous. The point is that Bush/we never said WWII and the war on terrorism are the same, only that they started in the same way: as the result of a ruthless surprise attack upon the U.S, and that the U.S. will respond in the same way as it did after Pearl Harbor, with strength and a determined resolve to defeat those who attacked and/or declared war on us.
Criminy. This thread has sunk so far that you guys sound like you’re debating the validity of Nostradamus’ prophecies.
You guys can repeat this mantra till the cows come home but for all the repetition, it doesn’t make it any less false w/regard to the Iraq invasion than the first time it was uttered. See, once more with feeling, Iraq neither attacked and/or declared war on the US.
BTW, the the whole TWAT thing is rather old news. Although I must admit it remains quite apt.
Back to parsing for a moment:
Either they’re both true, or they’re both ridiculous.
I believe this was the main thrust of the OP.
That was half of the thrust of it 
- but it was more the obscenity of stealing the recognition being given to the bravery of the D-Day veterans, and applying it to himself and his dubious ‘war’ on terror, and his disgraceful duplicitous war on Iraq.
(Hence the topic title - note to the Bush defenders, I didn’t call him evil, just arrogant)
PS-Although I’ve told him before it bears repeating: hat’s off to gobear, one of the staunches pre-invasion invasion defenders, and someone I had some very heated discussions with back then, for taking the ideological blinders off in accordance with the outpouring of evidence that left his position without a foothold.
Would that the rest of you quit grasping at bushes, they ain’t going to hold your weight.
In that one sentence you have explained the heart of the bewilderment that I feel about the Bush Administration and those who continue to excuse and support it. I did not know that my compatriots would ever accept tyranny in our leadership, but that is what it has come to.
Thanks for the point in the right direction. I will see what I can find to clear up my misunderstanding.
Shodan, you called me a clown and told me how wrong I am in my interpretation of President Bush’s speech and how irrational I am – when you are the one who has totally misinterpreted and misrepresented my statements made earlier in this thread:
From post #65:
I allude to this interpretation of his speech in post #68 and again in post #78. One would actually have had to be paying attention to what I said to be aware of my position.
Shodan, you were wrong.
Excuse me, but to borrow your wording: The fact that you so desperately want me to have said it means that you are misinterpreting what I actually said. Which is an example of what you mentioned earlier - that near-obsessive hatred (in this case, of liberals) is leading many completely over the edge into irrationality.
You are arguing a point no one is contesting, and it has nothing to do with my post.
Below is my statement that you responded to above:
“The point is that Bush/we never said WWII and the war on terrorism are the same, only that they started in the same way: as the result of a ruthless surprise attack upon the U.S, and that the U.S. will respond in the same way as it did after Pearl Harbor, with strength and a determined resolve to defeat those who attacked and/or declared war on us.”
The point is, the war on terrorism began with the sneak attacks on 9/11, just like (our participation in) WWII began with the sneak attack on Pear Harbor. And Bush is calling for the nation to show the same resolve and determination to defeat its enemies in the war on terrorism that it showed during WWII. You and I can disagree as to the threat posed by Hussein’s Iraq and the action we’ve taken against it, but it’s the war on terrorism as a whole that Bush is speaking of and not Iraq alone. Nothing in my comments above can possibly by construed by anyone not blinded by their own prejudice as being false.
Some good news on the TWAT: I hear they’ve just captured the CLIT Master.
Pardon, make that Pearl Harbor.
Starving Artist, if it matters, I have noticed that you don’t seem to generalize as much as some of the others as you do distinguish fine points. Thanks for that.
And there we’ll probably have to part company. Honorably, hopefully.
I don’t think anybody is willfully blinded. They just interpet the facts surrounding circumstances differnently. (That’s assuming any ordinary onlooker has the least access to actual “facts”.)
The WWII analogy falls apart on so many levels, not the least because 50+ years of experience. The world isn’t the same, nor should it be. Even WWII was far from clear cut. It was horrible, and way too many people died…horribly, not the least because ordinary people didn’t know 1. what the fuck caused it in the first place and 2. what to think. Monsters didn’t gain sway in a vacuum. Ordinary people said, ‘Oh, yeah, me too.’ If you want a chilling analysis of idealistic power run amok, read Tuchman’s The Guns of August about WWI.
Those fortunate enough to live in open republics have a higher responsiblity, IMO. First, to keep their own minds free; second, to drive their goverments instead of governments driving them. Demanding it, in fact.
I don’t automatically trust any leader, national or local. Screw parties and ideologies; most of that crap is frills for the gullible. Balancing the differences is the job of a leader. That’s the litmus test.
It’s a gruelling task, ultimately and pitilessly judged by history, but them’s the breaks. Anybody who plays in that arena puts their gall, hubris, vision, whatever, on the line. Fair game, because the costs for their mistakes are too high.
Hard, even ruthless, examination shouldn’t be dismissed as prejudice or blind opposition. It’s the reality check any “leader” should be able to answer.
Veb
Thank you, Zoe. Yes indeed it matters, and your words are doubly appreciated as I know we differ philosophically.
TVeblen, your posts are reasonable and well thought out and you make points that are valid. I agree that our leaders should have their feet held to the fire and be made to justify their actions. I also agree that the people should drive the government rather than the other way around.
However, I think there is a big difference between closely scrutinizing our leaders’ actions vs. becoming so convinced of their stupidity, motivations and evil nature that even plainly worded statements are misinterpreted and their meanings distorted and perverted to conform to the beliefs of those who oppose them.
Your post is similar in a small way. You, not the Bush administration, are comparing WWII with the war on terror. There is a distinction. All Bush did, as I said above, was compare the way the two wars started and attempt to rally the country to fight terrorism with the same resolve as it did in WWII. Many of the posters to this thread, fueled by their distrust of and rage against Bush and his administration are accusing him either of stupidly not knowing that Pearl Harbor didn’t start WWII, or that he is cleverly and deceitfully trying to con the country into believing that the war against Iraq (as opposed to the war on terror as a whole) is the equivalent of WWII. Neither of these are correct, and no objective person reading Bush’s comments would read any such things into them.
It’s one thing to examine our leader’s behavior and policies closely and hold them responsible for the things they do, it’s another entirely to completely distort, pervert or extrapolate their words into something they aren’t, and to then attack them for the distortions or extrapolations. And it’s my opinion that this is what has been going on in this thread. Many of those posting to it hate Bush so fervently that they can’t think straight and read things into his comments that were never there.
All right, let’s try it this way. Starving Artist, Shodan, and any other conservative may answer this. Leaving aside all partisanship, how do you feel about the Administration’s persistance to include the occupation of Iraq in the War on Terror? Do you think it’s justified? Or do you cringe, and shout at the TV that while you support the war, you don’t feel it has anything to do with TWAT?
See, I can understand people supporting the war in Iraq. I don’t agree with them, but there are certainly valid arguments to defend that positition. What I DON’T get, is seemingly intelligent people absorbing the “War on Terror” retoric without criticism, implicitly accepting that Iraq somehow had anything to do with terrorist attacks on the United States, whereas that is extremely dubious to say the least.
In other words, there’s no shame in admitting that Bush is a demagogue. Hell, you can still support the War in Iraq, and condemn the deliberate blurring of the lines at the same time.
Coldfire, I will attempt to answer the questions I think you have, but I have to say first of all that the questions you pose contain a couple of false premises. First, you express a lack of understanding as to how intelligent conservatives (of which I consider myself a member of the “compasionate” wing ) such as us can “absorb” war on terror rhetoric without criticism, etc. Secondly, you assume and seem to regard as a fact that we feel, by virtue of our support of the war in Iraq, that Iraq was complicit in the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Both of these premises are incorrect, and in fact it is this latter one I have responded to over and over.
Your first premise seems to hold that we are incapable of observing world events, both now and in the past, and coming to our own conclusions as to what course of action is best. Rather, that we *must * be just mindlessly swallowing White House rhetoric and adopting it as our mantra. This just is not the case. It is quite possible, although it must be a mystery to those who think as you do, to come to these conclusions ourselves based upon what we see and what life experience tells us would be the best course of action.
Secondly, many of the people on this board don’t seem to be able even to conceive of the idea that it is possible to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still be in favor of our action in Iraq. The inability of the people on this board to grasp this, and to always jump to the conclusion that we think Iraq participated in 9/11 if we favor the war in Iraq, makes me feel like I’m trying to describe a one-sided coin. It just doesn’t seem possible to get through to anybody that we can think the war in Iraq is justified without thinking Iraq participated in 9/11. I explain this and explain it but it does no good. I am beginning to suspect it is just a subconscious defense mechanism on the part of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war proponents here. It’s far easier to ridicule me for being so stupid as to think Iraq attacked the U.S. than it is to discuss such things as what Bush really said in his speech and/or what he’s really trying to convey to the country.
Now, on to your questions as follows:
Quote:
“Leaving aside all partisanship, how do you feel about the Administration’s persistance to include the occupation of Iraq in the War on Terror? Do you think it’s justified? Or do you cringe, and shout at the TV that while you support the war, you don’t feel it has anything to do with TWAT?”
How do I feel about the Administration’s inclusion of Iraq in the War on Terror?
I’m glad it has, and I feel safer as a result. Here’s why: As **Shodan ** pointed out earlier in this thread, there’s a maxim that goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It is my belief that a strong synergy exists among the anti-American goals of al-Qaeda and Iraq. I don’t care that they weren’t holding hands before we attacked Iraq. I care that they may very well have come together at some point with Iraq providing WMD and al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks. Hussein was known to hate the U.S. after the Gulf war. He tried to have Bush, Sr. assasinated, and his warlike aspirations in his own region were being thwarted by the U.S. He has used WMD in the past on both the Iranians and even his own people. I also don’t care if it turns out we don’t find WMD in Iraq, after all. It is my belief that Hussein likely either didn’t have them or moved them out of the country prior to the U.S. invasion. Either way, had we not invaded there would have been no way to stop Hussein from obtaining or developing WMD at some point, and there would have been no way to keep them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda if Hussein and al-Qaeda were so disposed. Agree or not, I believe the synergy between al-Qaeda and Iraq was easily strong enough to warrant U.S. action in Iraq, especially in view of the fact that Hussein had played hide-and-seek with his weapons for years, was dishonest and known to employ every from of trickery at his disposal to try to thwart international efforts to keep him reined in.
Secondarily, I’m very much in favor of the war as a human rights issue. I have been apalled at what has happened to the Iraqi populace under Hussein’s rule, and I care very much about the safety and quality of life, not just of Iraqis, but of oppressed people all over the globe. Clearly, we can’t police the entire world, but in this case we could make a huge positive difference in the lives of millions of Iraqis. Just yesterday I was reading an article on Iraq in a new issue of National Geographic Magazine. There were pictures of people sobbing at mass graves as they held the bones of their loved ones who had disappeared under Hussein. The article reports that between five and seven *million * people have disappeared and been killed under Hussein’s regime. I hear all the rage on this board about the 10,000 Iraqis that have been killed due to our action, but I hear nothing about the millions upon millions of people who were killed and continuing to be killed under the regime we deposed. I’m always amazed that those on the left, who have always had the reputation of being concerned with human rights, seem so unconcerned with the human rights of people outside our own borders. Behavior toward women, for example, that would have people screaming for blood if it took place in this country is met with an “Oh, well…that’s just the way it is over there.” type of attitude when it comes to the women of other countries. The same type of attitude is shown also whenever it comes to people disappearing, being killed, raped, intimidated, etc. Believe it or not, we concervatives tend to be more concerned with the plight of these people than most of those on the other side appear to be. My feeling is that the 10,000 people killed now may very well prevent hundreds of thousands or even millions of people from being killed in the future, people both here and abroad who would have been killed had we not taken action. This same article also speaks of how many Iraqis are so thankful that we are there, and how they now have hope and optimism for their future where absolutely none existed before.
I am also in favor of the action in Iraq for the role it may eventually play in bringing peace and stability to the middle east. If a stable and functioning democratic Iraq can actually be acheived (and that is not a shoo-in), I think the repercussions throughout the Middle East will be tremendous over the decades to come. I feel, and I suspect Bush does too, that Israel will be safer as a result of Hussein being out of power, and will therefore be more agreeable to giving back some of the land it seized in the 1967 war. I think a democratic Iraq will have a freeing influence on the populations of many of the other countries in the region. It’s hard to watch your neighbor enjoying freedom and self-determination and not having it yourself. So, in a nutshell, I think the war on Iraq is keeping the U.S. safer, is saving lives and creating better futures for millions of people, is a potential giant step forward in creating a more stable and democratic Middle East, and could be an important part of settling at last, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in particular and the Arab world in general.
And make that “conservatives,” not concervatives. :smack:
Well, I see that Coldfire has already addressed the salient point I was trying to get across – namely that with this, his latest speech, Bush continues to blatantly conflate the two.
Now, I am not half as nice as Coldie is, nor do I feel I need to be with all you fucking locksteppers and Bush apologists, so you can stick your “nothing in my comments above can possibly by construed by anyone not blinded by their own prejudice as being false” where the sun don’t shine. Because there is simply no other fucking way to interpret that comment. Or are you positing that this Administration has NOT been trying to spin their ass off in order to sell the Iraq invasion as the central front on TWAT?
For fucks sake, man, what else could “present conflict” mean other than Iraq and Afghanistan?
By that logic, would you be happy for any country that holds animosity towards the US to be included in TWAT?
That would never, ever have happened. There is no way that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would ever become entwined with a secular leader such as Saddam.
Agree or not, I believe the synergy between al-Qaeda and Iraq was easily strong enough to warrant U.S. action in Iraq,
[/quote]
Do you know what ‘synergy’ actually means? If so, how on earth does it apply in this statement?
Of course ‘we’ were horrified by Saddam’s human rights record - but the US is supposedly there to show how the West is far far superior in that respect, and is so far failing to do that. Furthermore, if human rights were the real concern, the Bush administration wouldn’t be cosying up to the government of Uzbekistan, for instance. Not to mention China.
Breathtaking ignorance of the facts of what Iraq under Saddam was actually like.
Many countries in the middle east are moving towards greater democracy, without any Western pressure - witness the ongoing democracy struggle in Iran, greater electoral and voting rights for women in Bahrain, etc. Essentially, you are advocating an imperial approach that the rest of the world (oh, ok, ‘old Europe’
:rolleyes: ) long ago realised was bound to fail.