Because my country does not make aggressive war. My country does not slaughter the innocent on a vague pretext. Nazis do that. Monsters do that.
Cowards do that.
Our country doesn’t make aggressive war, eh?
Our first war was aggressive, throwing off the oppression of our rightful owners. Our second war was arguably precipitated by us. Our third war was a war of expansion under BS causes. Our fourth war was against other Americans, and the side that ultimately won picked the fight. Our fourth war? Trumped up charges against the Spanish, earned us Cuba and the Philippines. Our fifth war? Nah, we didn’t desperately try to get into that one by giving the Brits war materiel, did we? Our sixth war. Remember Lend-Lease? Remember that people still think that FDR knew it was coming but didn’t provide any warning? That one is the only debateable one so far. Our seventh war? That “incident” in the Gulf of Tonkin, remember that? Number eight…ah, the first “War For Oil”, you surely remember that one. The one where we defended a small country for the oil?
Dude, every single major war we have fought as a country has been a result, either directly or indirectly, of our aggressiveness as a nation. So don’t try to bullshit me now by comparing us to Nazis. We don’t exterminate people, but we sure as shit get into fights, mostly because we like to pick them.
Still feeling self-righteous? We can continue this debate elsewhere if you’d like to go into more detail.
Maybe you can remind us exactly what role Iraq played in 9/11 or in any terrorist attacks on the US?
My pleasure.
First, if indeed your ‘big dog," shoot one for the edification of the others justification for the invasion and occupation is correct, is there some reason that our President did not simply explain it in those terms–that The New World Order means that the US is in charge of the world and anybody who doesn’t like it better make sure their life insurance is up to date–that the US must invade and occupy Iraq because we need to make and example of Iraq so that others will not challenge our authority? If that is the justification aren’t the American people and international opinion entitled to the truth?
[/quote]
**
That’s another good question. I think your restatement of the “big dog” theory is a bit of an oversimplification of what I said, but no matter.
But yeah, I think there’s a reason why it wasn’t put in those terms.
I think Bush would have liked to have done it that way. I think there were indications that he wanted to.
He said pretty strongly that the UN would be obsolete if it didn’t give him the go-ahead on Iraq, and that he would do it anyway, even if they didn’t. It was pretty much much a promise to react unilaterally and wage a technically illegal war on principle. Remember how he talked about wanting to get everybody “on record?” I think he was planning on overruling France’s veto.
I also think that it became clear that England wasn’t going to go along with us if we did it that way. For them to go along the war needed to be legal.
So I think Bush and Blair decided that they were going to gamble and assert as fact something they only guessed was true. Because if Saddam had WMDs that were ready to go it was a clear and present danger. If they said that then the war is legal from a self-defense standpoint. So they agreed to lie and assert a guess or an opinion as an indisputable fact to justify the war legally.
So, they knowingly chose to lie, and probably felt pretty confident that they would be able to vindicate themselves after the fact. I mean, shit, all they really would need is a couple of shells of mustard gas to make the argument, right? What are the chances there won’t be something.
They probably figured it wasn’t much of a lie, and that it was better than backing down and getting derailed.
So in short, if it was portrayed straight up the war would have been illegal and no help from England because of the veto and wouldn’t come along. To make it legal it had to be self-defense, which meant clear and present danger, which meant WMDs. So they lied and said they knew he had them when they did not know.
That’s why I guess Bush couldn’t follow through on his desire to get everybody to be “on record,” and why he couldn’t just go with what you call the “Big Dog” scenario.
Yes, I do. And you don’t have to tell me that it’s some scary, bad shit. It means that we are saying to the world that we are willing to be a law unto our selves answerable to know one in this thing. Hopefully we can get the world to agree with us, that it can be mutual and not unilateral. Hopefully when we lead, others will follow. If we all do it together I really beleive it will work. If they don’t it may not work at all, and could backfire and we could be the bad guy. It could make it look like we’re trying to conquer the world. We might even become the bad guy and try to do it.
But it in order to ever get it to work, we have to lead by committing to it.
So yeah, I know. It’s some scary shit.
But I keep thinking about what Warren Buffet said about the inevitablity of a terrorist nuclear attack on a major us city in the next twenty years.
If we don’t do something, I think he’s right. It was scary enough when just the two superpowers were threatening the world with nukes and bioagents. Now lots of countries have them within reach. We’re on the cusp of where small terrorist organizations or individuals may be able to acquire them. Technology keeps marching forward.
The only way I see to forstall such events is to make terrorism completely unviable, so that nobody dares do it, support it, or be involved with anybody that does. Not only does association with terrorism have to be guarranteed sucide for any country or regime, but total active determined active vigilance against it must be a requirement that is enforced.
I see no other way to accomplish this than with the “Big Dog” and all its dangers and pitfalls and implications. I just don’t see an alternative. To wipe out terrorism and make it unviable is worth just about any cost.
With all sincerity, if you do, I’d be eager to hear it. Give me something else that can work.
Indeed. That was the lie.
I can’t because there wasn’t any role in 9/11, or any terrorist attacks I am aware of.
I don’t see why it has to be the US. It can be our allies, too. And while I think it’s pretty clear Saddam didn’t sponsor 9/11 he did invade Kuwait and lob scuds at Israel, both of which I consider to be terroristic acts.
I think it’s ok to call Saddam a terrorist dictator, and that fighting Saddam is part of the war on terror because of his actions.
Incidentally, I never, not once, EVER, said that there was any connection between Saddam and 9/11. So what’s your point?
That lie is what will cause me to vote against Mr. Bush.
mmm good turkey! BTW Happy thanksgiving everyone!
Historically speaking Spavined Gelding and elucidator, the parallel I see in this whole mess is like the Fourth Crusade:
http://www.boglewood.com/timeline/crusade.html
Put Dubya in the role of Doge Enrico Dandolo, and Constantinople as Iraq.
http://www.boglewood.com/timeline/wayward.html
http://www.boglewood.com/timeline/constantinople.html
And what happened to the original plan to take Egypt and then Jerusalem from the Muslims? Well, once Iraq, I mean Constantinople, was captured and pillaged, the crusaders found no compelling reason to “finish” the job, that could disrupt trade (Egypt=Saudi Arabia), as another Bush said before: “wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture!”
Scylla: there is a disconnection there, since virtually all approve of the intervention in Afghanistan, that should be enough of a clue to make you see that there is indeed a consensus to do as you say, the problem is that many (even in the intelligence community) are considering Iraq a step that made a mess of that effort.
Airman Doors, USAF: The administration also has mentioned that there was no connection of Iraq with 9/11, but this weasel move to constantly mention Iraq in the same level of Afganistan is not a coincidence.
You said the war in Iraq was a “step in the war on terror.” Since Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US I don’t see the connection.
I think they’re wrong and that I’m right. Afghanistan is easy. It’s the old way, wait until we’re hit and exact retribution.
Being reactive means we’re going to get hit again. Eventually it’s going to be a nuke, or smallpox. Eventually, technology means that we are going to lose millions in a terrorist attack.
To win. To prevent it, we have to be proactive. We have to stop them before they get us.
The only way to do that that I can see has a chance of working is with the “Bid Dog. (thanks for the nickname Spav”)
What you tell me Scylia is reprehensible. The policy of our government, a government that boasts of being a nation of law, that boasts of representative democracy, is might makes right and the end justifies the means. If what you say is true then we have just become what we have hated and feared all our national existence–a predator nation that seeks world domination. We have become Regency England, impressing neutral seaman and imposing continental blockades. You tell us that this is a good and moral stance for our nation. I tell you that the sooner we get this gang of Machiavellian imperialists out of office the better. There are better ways for this country to defend its self from terror than to make its self the natural target of every nationalist resentful that his country has been made the United States’ bitch.
This is the policy of quarterly profits with no regard to the long term consequences of action that improve the short term P&L statement. I am aghast.
I do, however, appreciate your candor.
Now, about those lies people who think the invasion and occupation a bad idea have been telling that you spoke of a few pages ago…
Let me guess: you’re really, really good at Twister.
What allies? After 9/11, we had the sympathy of the world. People who didn’t even like us were holding candlelight vigils. Then GeeDubya pissed it away being a tough guy.
Your definitions of “terrorism” are so flexible as to be meaningless. Saddam is a “terrorist dicator”? For actions during a war years ago? Whats the statute of limitations on that sort of thing, because there are some people in Guatemala and Nicaragua who might like to review the issues with us. People who’s families were slaughtered by death squads supported by us. Are we “terrorists”? Or does the term only apply to those not on our side?
Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. He still scampers free. We lost track of that particular issue, so we could attack a country that hadn’t done anything to us. And we now realize, could not have done anything to us. If attacking another country on entirely empty pretext isn’t terrorism, what is it? Isn’t the essence of terrorism to have your way by fear? Does slaughtering people who have done nothing to deserve it become instantly kosher because it is done by men in uniforms?
You cut your terms to fit the case, and then, when it fits the case, expect me to regard that as evidence?
Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn’t. But do you really want us to live in such a way that we had best hope there isn’t?
**
I think it’s a danger that we become that but it doesn’t necessarily follow.
I don’t think we have any choice but to be draconion in the war against terror, and I agree that it sucks. On this one thing alone we cannot compromise.
But I agree that it scares the shit out of me.
Assuming that you don’t disagree with my assessment of the dire need to make terrorism unviable, by what other methodology would you go about accomplishing this goal?
I disagree. I think it’s do or die.
It’s my pleasure. I enjoy the exchange of ideas, and you’ve helped me articulate something I’ve had trouble doing. Thanks for making it a pleasure. The kind of discussion you’ve offered me is why I’m here.
Are you serious? What I said in redundant phrasing was that I saw now shortage of perfidious lies in those who oppose the war. And I don’t. Some voted to give Bush the authority to attack and then immediately attacked Bush for warmongering simply for the political value. I see stupidity and lies on both sides and I consider a “you mean people oppose the war lie too? Cite?” declarations to be silly and disingenuous.
I hope you’re not telling me you need to take a pee, too 
Maybe it was too much Turkey, the question is if it was the country or the bird.
I am also waiting for this, since that line of yours came from a reply to me.
Oh, yeah, thanks for reminding me, Awkward Neutered Horse. What about those lies? You know, the ones you got whole bunches of? They ought to make an interesting comparison, considering the fluidity of your ethics.
You told me to forget it. Now you have to pee again?
Well, then, they must therefore exist. If there is no shortage, there must not be an absence, no? Enumerate them, but kindly spare us your clairovoyant reading of motives. Simply point out false statements, and why they are false. Simple enough.
After all, we did it for you. For months.
Actually, invading Kuwait and lobbing scuds at Isreal would traditionally be considered acts of war.
Spav:
BTW, you might be curious to know that you helped me figure something out.
One of the biggest conundrums I faced in this over the last year was why Bush and Blair would harp so hard on the WMDs, if they didn’t know for a fact that he had them.
It seemed to me that they didn’t need the argument to justify the war, so why would they push it if they didn’t know it to be true? Why would they lie?
I figured they must have something concrete, otherwise it’s a dunce move. Therefore they weren’t lying.
Evidence leads to the opposite conclusion, so why would they do it?
Because it had to be a legal war to get England to help. To make it legal it had to be self-defense, which means clear and present danger, which means they had to say they knew for a fact he had WMDs.
That’s the reason they lied, I think.
I don’t offer that as an excuse, just that with that reason it makes sense as to why they did it.