Volunteers Needed: "The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq"

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Same same with Clinton’s Wider War doctrine…
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re wrong on this account. Although I don’t buy into RTF’s thesis, the stated consequences of failure in the two situations are not analogous-- at least not in the way that RTF’s OP is framed. Yes, Clinton warned of a wider war if we didn’t take action, but no one stated or even implied that that wider war would affect the US directly. Bush is basically saying that if we fail in Iraq, the terrorists are going to come and get us. But failure to act in the Balkans posed no threat to US soil, just the possibility of involving ourselves in a larger European conflict later on (if we chose to do so, or if our NATO obligations forced us to).

122

It took 31 posts for Liberal to bring up Bill Clinton.

123

[QUOTE=Scylla]
OK. So you repudiate the chickenhawk argument. Correct?
[/quote]
I’m neither making it or repudiating it in this thread. I’m making a hypocrite-hawk argument, if you will.

And there’s of course no connection between the two in his mind, because he’s got the brains (and morals, but that’s another story) of pond scum.

But those who can draw that connection - that (in Bush’s alternate universe) the risk is enormous, that all of us face that risk, and that the army could use a few more good volunteers so that they wouldn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in recruiting, and so those soldiers who feel they’ve already done as much as they can handle won’t have to go back for their third and fourth tours in Iraq - maybe they could do their patriotic duty.

Since you are in Bush’s alternate universe, yes, you should close up your business or find someone else to run it for you in your absence, just like so many men did in WWII, kiss the wife and kid(s) goodbye, and sign up.

That’s right, the argument I never made, and specifically said in posts 85 that I wasn’t making.

So yes, I do indeed feel you don’t understand the OP.

124

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yes, Clinton warned of a wider war if we didn’t take action, but no one stated or even implied that that wider war would affect the US directly.
[/QUOTE]
Clinton did. (Does no one remember his speech?) He said that it evoked images of World War II, that problems starting beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them.

With the Cold War over, some people now question the need for our continued active leadership in the world. They believe that, much like after World War I, America can now step back from the responsibilities of leadership. They argue that to be secure, we need only to keep our own borders safe, and that the time has come now to leave to others the hard work of leadership beyond our borders. I strongly disagree. As the Cold War gives way to the global village, our leadership is needed more than ever because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them. We’re all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they too demand American leadership.

[…snip…]

Securing peace in Bosnia will also help to build a free and stable Europe. Bosnia lies at the very heart of Europe, next door to many of its fragile new democracies and some of our closest allies. Generations of Americans have understood that Europe’s freedom and Europe’s stability is vital to our own national security. That’s why we fought two wars in Europe; that’s why we launched the Marshall Plan to restore Europe; that’s why we created NATO and waged the Cold War, and that’s why we must help the nations of Europe to end their worst nightmare since World War II now.

(emphasis mine again)

125

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
It took 31 posts for Liberal to bring up Bill Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
Idiot. It took you 122 to breeze through and say nothing of consequence.

126

[QUOTE=Scylla]
In most every speech Bush made concerning the war he gave about ten reasons. During the build up I pointed this out, more than once. The debate was on WMDs As for the latter, the term used I recall was “grave and gathering threat” not “imminent.” So, if you say it was sold as an “imminent” threat, I’d like to see a cite.
[/QUOTE]

Personally, I’m not at all interested in having that semantic gunfight again. For you to act as if that was not the meaning is simply disingenuous.

127

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Clinton did. (Does no one remember his speech?) He said that it evoked images of World War II, that problems starting beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them.

With the Cold War over, some people now question the need for our continued active leadership in the world. They believe that, much like after World War I, America can now step back from the responsibilities of leadership. They argue that to be secure, we need only to keep our own borders safe, and that the time has come now to leave to others the hard work of leadership beyond our borders. I strongly disagree. As the Cold War gives way to the global village, our leadership is needed more than ever because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them. We’re all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they too demand American leadership.

[…snip…]

Securing peace in Bosnia will also help to build a free and stable Europe. Bosnia lies at the very heart of Europe, next door to many of its fragile new democracies and some of our closest allies. Generations of Americans have understood that Europe’s freedom and Europe’s stability is vital to our own national security. That’s why we fought two wars in Europe; that’s why we launched the Marshall Plan to restore Europe; that’s why we created NATO and waged the Cold War, and that’s why we must help the nations of Europe to end their worst nightmare since World War II now.

(emphasis mine again)
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. You’re right. Note, too, that Clinton “lied” to get us into Bosnia since that is not the reason “we fought two wars in Europe” (WWI, maybe, but not II). We only got into WWII when we were attacked first. It’s may be nice for us to think, after the fact, that we got in to help out our allies in Europe, but we really didn’t.

Having said that, I don’t want to imply that I’m setting up some sort of equivalency between Clinton and Bush wrt US security in these instances. Clinton’s actions did not put the US in any significant danger, and the mission was one which we could, and did, accomplish. Bush, OTOH, reacklessly took us into a nighmare war that is next to impossible to win and that leaves us in more danger afterwards. However, both “lied” about the military action, and both took military action w/o UNSC approval and without there being any imminent threat to the US.

128

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Having said that, I don’t want to imply that I’m setting up some sort of equivalency between Clinton and Bush wrt US security in these instances. Clinton’s actions did not put the US in any significant danger, and the mission was one which we could, and did, accomplish. Bush, OTOH, reacklessly took us into a nighmare war that is next to impossible to win and that leaves us in more danger afterwards. However, both “lied” about the military action, and both took military action w/o UNSC approval and without there being any imminent threat to the US.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. But that isn’t what RT and I disagreed about. I wasn’t arguing that Iraq and Bosnia are analogous in every particular. Merely that if what the president said about one of them should have been interpreted as a clarion call for all supporters to enlist in the armed forces, then so ought the other one. That compulsion to enlist or else be a hypocrite — basically, a put your money where your mouth is challenge — was the whole thesis of the OP. At least as I read it.

129

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I agree. But that isn’t what RT and I disagreed about. I wasn’t arguing that Iraq and Bosnia are analogous in every particular. Merely that if what the president said about one of them should have been interpreted as a clarion call for all supporters to enlist in the armed forces, then so ought the other one. That compulsion to enlist or else be a hypocrite — basically, a put your money where your mouth is challenge — was the whole thesis of the OP. At least as I read it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand that. I just wanted to attempt to forestall the usual pile-on that ensues when anyone brings up comparisons between Bush and Clinton. The analogy you were making is correct since both presidents claimed that there was grave risk to the US and to “western democracy” prior to or during the military actions they undertook.

130

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Idiot. It took you 122 to breeze through and say nothing of consequence.
[/QUOTE]
Idiot? Me? You’ve been totally wrong in every position and prediciton you made about the Iraq war. You’re a fucking tool, and you were even when you were calling yourself something different on these boards.

Just keep talking about Bill Clinton. Maybe it will make everybody forget about all the dead people you and your pro-war buddies made from the comfort of your own homes.

131

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
You’ve been totally wrong in every position and prediciton you made about the Iraq war.
[/QUOTE]
You’re mistaken. My position has always been that it was an ethical tyranny. And I haven’t made any predictions about it.

132

A couple of points. First off, it seems somewhat confirmed that, in the relevant quote, that GeeDub was, indeed, talking about civilian volunteers to work on infrastructure issues, i.e., fixing wrecked shit…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/world/middleeast/15baghdad.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=afa3820aca479eef&hp&ex=1168923600&partner=homepage

U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans

So, guys, its not necessary for you to meet military standards for induction, or even tote a weapon. Civilians welcome! Come get some!

Offered without comment.

133

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’m neither making it or repudiating it in this thread. I’m making a hypocrite-hawk argument, if you will.
[/quote]

A distinction with little semantic difference. Is a chickenhawk not a hypocrite? Might not a hypocritehawk be scared? Do we really need two distinct insults of this nature for vacuous folk to cast aspersions?

Why the weasel words? If you beleive the chickenhawk argument is valid you should say so. Similarly, you should denounce it if you beleive it false. You should be fighting ignorance not walking a semantic tightwire that allows you to be insulting without a stance to back it up.

So your OP depends on your reading Bush’s mind in order to assign to him a viewpoint he has not expressed which you can then attack, and call him stupid with. Personally, I can’t read minds. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you sign up for Randi’s million dollar prize, win it, and then I guess I’ll have to concede the validity of your telepathic powers vis a vis Bush

I feel that you really haven’t gone to the trouble to have a consistent thought on the issue, much the less express it.

134

[QUOTE=Frank]
Personally, I’m not at all interested in having that semantic gunfight again. For you to act as if that was not the meaning is simply disingenuous.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how you can have that stance reasonably. One would think if he had meant “imminent” he would have said that rather than “gathering.”

You seem to be aware of the distinction. Why can’t you argue with the actual words the man said without changing their meaning?

The need to do that is a sign of a weak argument.

135

[QUOTE=Scylla]
A distinction with little semantic difference.
[/quote]
IYHO, and quite frankly, your opinion sucks. Bravery/cowardice and integrity/hypocrisy are completely different things, independent of one another. Hypocrites may be brave or cowardly; cowards may be honest or hypocritical.

Because I don’t care about the chickenhawk argument right now. I haven’t given a great deal of thought to it, I don’t feel like giving thought to it, and my OP did not raise that argument. So I would be false to argue for it or denounce it.

Your wish that I have a well-formed opinion of an issue of concern to you but not to me, lays no obligation on me to have such an opinion. And you are urging that I be dishonest to egg me into coming down on one side or the other in the absence of such an opinion. That’s a funny way of fighting ignorance, but then I’ve lost all illusions about your being interested in that.

No. And if any offhand remark by the OP in a thread is an assertion that one’s OP depends on, then not a single debate on this board could possibly construed to make sense anymore.

Fortunately, this is just a Scylla Rule, which the rest of us can ignore.

But yes, Bush is a moron. And no, the OP doesn’t depend on that. If that bothers you, that’s your problem, not mine.

136

[QUOTE=Liberal]
You’re mistaken. My position has always been that it was an ethical tyranny. And I haven’t made any predictions about it.
[/QUOTE]
Then either you were wrong in that position, or you’ve got a very different definition of ‘ethical’ than most persons.

137

[QUOTE=Liberal]
We’re all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they too demand American leadership.
[/quote]
Can we get any more general than that?

This is basically “bad stuff of all kinds threatens freedom and other good things in unspecific places.” You may wish it says more than that, but it doesn’t.

And this says less than you would wish:

Europe’s stability is vital to our national security, okay, got that. How great a threat was Bosnia to Europe’s stability? Funny, I asked you that earlier: I asked you if Clinton had said the Bosnian war would threaten some of Bosnia’s nearest established neighbors, such as Greece, Hungary, Romania? Apparently he didn’t claim it would, since you haven’t answered it.

And of course, my other point - that of the need for volunteers beyond the normal supply at the time - also remains unanswered.

138

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Europe’s stability is vital to our national security, okay, got that. How great a threat was Bosnia to Europe’s stability? Funny, I asked you that earlier: I asked you if Clinton had said the Bosnian war would threaten some of Bosnia’s nearest established neighbors, such as Greece, Hungary, Romania? Apparently he didn’t claim it would, since you haven’t answered it.
[/QUOTE]
Have you read a goddamn thing? People actually reading the speech and then reading your responses are discovering — unless their very tongues are up your ass — that you are a weasel or an idiot.

139

Well, at least you’ve got that right.

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I wasn’t arguing that Iraq and Bosnia are analogous in every particular. Merely that if what the president said about one of them should have been interpreted as a clarion call for all supporters to enlist in the armed forces, then so ought the other one.
[/quote]
The problem is, not every situation must be a ‘put your money where your mouth is’ situation. I’ve given criteria to differentiate one from the other - the seriousness and universality of the threat, and whether the threat’s under control absent wider participation in combating the threat. (There’s a third one implicit here - the ability of wider participation to make a difference, but that just came to mind.) You have chosen to ignore the arguments I’ve made based on those criteria. You can respond to the arguments, or the validity of the criteria, or whatever. But instead you’re just fussing.

140

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Have you read a goddamn thing? People actually reading the speech and then reading your responses are discovering — unless their very tongues are up your ass — that you are a weasel or an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve read what you quoted, and pointed out that it doesn’t say what you wish it did.

“People…are discovering”: care to name names? The only one who’s responded to your longish excerpt is John Mace @127, 129. His response at 127 is less than a full endorsement of your interpretation, and his response @129 to your post @128 may or may not be tempered by my responses @137 and @139 to your posts @124 and @128.