The same way I was able to - by thinking about it for a second or two, and not just swallowing what the media tells them.
The Axis attacked the US, fight the Axis
the Iraqis attacked Kuwait, fight the Iraqis
Some Arabs, mostly Saudi, based in Afghanistan, attacked the US, fight Afgahanistan - oh, and the Iraqis who had nothing to do with it.
…see the thing that’s just fucked up tacked on at the end there? I could see it when your leadership first started talking about invasion, and I’m no rocket scientist. So either the common soldier is stupid, or he doesn’t care to know. But not caring to know doesn’t absolve him of moral responsibility.
Japan did, but not it’s allies. See if we were attacked by AQ and they we’re allied with Iraq, it would seem similar, wouldn’t it?
Or was it Iraq taking back a valuable piece of land carved out from their nation from the emirs? Shouldn’t we let all the soldiers take a few months to investigate that first? Do some good research? I’m sure the Kuwaitis didn’t want the raping, murderous US soldiers to invade their nation. :rolleyes:
Who the US Congress believed was allied with Iraq. Who the majority of the public believed was allied with Iraq. Apparently the soldiers are supposed to have special senses or information that the public, congress and their commanders don’t?
I could see it too, but I’m a nuclear scientist. But the majority of the US public didn’t. I don’t expect that the average soldier would either.
If wishes were fishes we’d all carry nets. AQ wasn’t allied with Saddam. This was aknown fact, what’s the point of this hypothetical?
And I believe Germany declared war on the US shortly after the Japanese.
“Oh, let’s take his argument to ridiculous extremes, attack that, then pat ourselves on the back”
Man, if you can’t see the difference between coming to the defence of an ally, and aggressive occupation, I don’t think you should be arguing about this.
Only as much sense as many on the board, and many people in eg Europe. Don’t think that because the average US soldier has no more investigative wit than the average US citizen, this absolves the soldier. It doesn’t.
As does South Africa’s use of Aprtheid if you want to go that route. Damn all the people of all the nations for what their govenments do without their knowledge.
I thought you were the one arguing that the US shouldn’t be able to project force beyond its borders? How exactly do you propose we fight the Axis and Iraq and Afghanistan in that case?
…and so? Just 'cos majority of US populace is gullible/ignorant/just-plain-stupid doesn’t change the reality of a situation. Or the morality, IMO.
emphasis mine
Let’s go there, then. I agree that Apartheid damns the willing citizens too. And no, they weren’t ignorant about what was going on. Most of them were willing participants or silent (therefore liable) witnesses, I remember. Of course, I wasn’t a full citizen at the time, what with not having a proper vote and all, Apartheid being what it was.
Did you really think bringing up Apartheid would be a point in your favour? We have a word for that level of stupidity, only montypolitely said I can’t use it. I’ll just laugh quietly.
Did you miss the word “unilaterally” there? It’s not about the ability to defend yorself, but the ability to be an uncontrolled aggressor. An international bully.
perhaps “project its force” is the wrong expression? I’m referring to the bases in Europe, Asia and the ME, not the ability to respond to an attack. The way the USSR used to have training camps in Angola and Mozambique as a projection of its force in Africa. What would you call it?
I learn from the best, although lately your store of insults seems severely impoverished. Could you at least toss in a “stupid” or “disingenous” for variety, please?
Then you should have worked harder to overcome the immoral government. You’re just as liable in that case, you were supporting the immoral government, just like those evil, nasty cooks.
What, are we in Plaidland? Points? Laugh all you want, I just find your expectations to be rediculously high for the average person who has far more to worry about than discerning international relations.
I would call it “maintaining forward bases so as to be able to react quickly in case you, your allies, or your strategic interests are threatened”. So if we are required to give up our bases in Europe, for instance, we would have trouble reacting when Milosovic bombs people. If the US and her allies had a system like that, you could call it, oh, I don’t know, NATO or something. Or perhaps use our navy to be sure the oil keeps flowing thru the Persian Gulf. Or maybe have bases in Japan to be able to defend Taiwan in case Red China gets the wrong idea.
Look, maybe I am being too harsh on you and English isn’t your native language, but if you don’t mean “the US shouldn’t be able to project its force beyond its borders” then maybe you shouldn’t say it.
I thought the alternative you suggested to the US having (apparently) bases in Europe was nuclear weapons. Is that still what you mean? Like we should have nuked the Serbs back in the 90s, or dropped the Big One on Bagdhad in '91?
I’ll admit, this is the first time I have heard an anti-militarist make that suggestion. Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me, and I kind of doubt that the Kuwaitis or Israelis would have gone for the idea back in Desert Storm, but you would like to make a case…
U.S. Merchant Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
SS City of Flint Oct. 9, 1939 seized by German warship North Atlantic
SS City of Rayville Nov. 9, 1940 a German mine Australian coast
SS Charles Pratt Dec. 21, 1940 torpedoed unknown
SS Robin Moor May 21, 1941 torpedoed by a U-Boat South Atlantic
SS Robert Moore May 27, 1941 torpedoed by U-69 Atlantic
SS Steel Seafarer Sept. 5, 1941 German aircraft Gulf of Suez
SS Lehigh Oct. 19, 1941 torpedoed off the African coast
SS Astral (vanished) Dec. 2, 1941 presumed torpedoed North Atlantic
SS Sagadahoc Dec. 3, 1941 torpedoed South Atlantic
The U.S. Maritime Service was an official, uniformed, armed service created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.
A total of 39 American mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.
But I guess they don’t count.
Well since you believe it to be false, it must be false. Jesus, you sound like one of those types that feels so superior you base your opinion on whatever the opposite of the majority is, since being so special means only a select few could possibly be as spiffy as yourself. Sometimes an opinion is held by a majority of people because it’s the correct one.
And yet, sometimes they’re right. What part of “sometimes” are you having trouble with? I’ll try to help you with it, just need to know at which letter you’re stumbling. I love to help people. I’m nothing if not a humanitarian.
When you said “Sometimes an opinion is held by a majority of people because it’s the correct one” you were responding to Mr Dibble’s post which argued that the belief of 70% of American citizens in a link between Saddam & Al-Qaeda didn’t necessarily make it so. The clear implication was that there was a link between Saddam & Al-Qaeda, and that those 70% of people were right. I was just pointing out that no, in fact, there never was any tangible link between the two.
For fuck’s sake. I was talking about “sometimes”. That means in more than one instance. Saddam=bin Laden is one item. One. There is no variable in a single instance. Either it is, or it isn’t. I wasn’t addressing the link being believed, I was addressing the issue of thinking the populace, as a whole, is as he describes them. He states that the American populace, as a whole, is barely worthy of even his contempt based on the post. And many other posts. I like to try to think of “The Bigger Picture” every now and then. I’ve made a conscious effort to try and see beyond the minutiae of an issue and live beyond a soundbite. YMMV. Hope that clears it up a bit. I’ve gotten to the point that it’s now simply amusing to see people that lambaste other’s for making broad generalzations stating all Americans are dullards with near impunity.
Frankly, it has become more entertaining than thought-provoking. But what do I know? I voted for Bush twice. Excuse me while I go drool on my shoes.