Twhy...rather than go into it, I suggest you read more about our already having discredited the Brit position before Bush quoted it.
I am contrasting us to Saddam's Iraq. That was the challenge when raising the question about who was wearing the White Hats. You are contrasting us to Canada and Western Europe. Of course, the differences are not that great. I wouldn't begrude a move to Toronto but I'd shudder about Tikrit (pre- or post-war).
MacB the report I cited was from September '03...instruct me to what I'm not understanding...might not get back on it til Monday...busy day here at the ol' office.
Before I respond, I would just like to commend a well thought out post. In short, I think you are confusing two things; the prupose of democratic debate, and the purpose of propoganda, as it relates to the authority. You suggest that in a democratic state, the caussi bello(i) can be confused with propoganda irrespective of the actual administrative reason for war, but I submit that a power which uses it's authority to propogate secondary reasons, partly falsely, partly to such a degree that it ignores the fact that the same 'caussi(o)s apply in countless other places, etc. is, in fact, contrary tot he democratic practice, and therefore not part and prcel to it. In this regard, Bush DID go over the objections of his constituency, as the polls show. This is the chronology: A) Bush floats war with Iraq, loosely tied to 9-11, but focusing primarily on the UN WMD treaty. B) Polls show that the people, outside of hard-line Bush supporters, don't buy it. C) Bush talks more about Iraq as a haven for terrorists... D) Polls show continued lack of popular support. E) Bush talks about Saddam's tyranny. F) Polls show that people sympathize with oppressed Iraqis, but don't support the war. G) Bush comes forth will all the new found intel about Iraq's nukes and chemical weapons stockpiles, and talks about intel warning of the threat they pose to America through terrorists like Al Queda...( which we now know to be false...we were citing intel we knew was bad, had collected selectively, and moreover, our intel was telling us Saddam was NOT a threat to the US, through terrorists or any other way, even if he had the WMDs.) H) Polls show support for the war go through the roof. It has been done in here before, so I won't repeat it, but there is a direct and acknowledged cause and effect relationship evident between the support for the war and the nukes. After the nukes Bush hammered more at the issues which ad previously proved insufficient, but it was the nukes/WMDs. So, in the end, what is the difference between going over the objections of the people directly, or merely using the authority of the White House and the faith people put in that to manipulate them into abandoning their objections through fear, citing information which you know to be questionable but call certain, ignoring contrary intel and never talling the people it even exists, or even saying that the intel is telling you what it isn't? You say he wouldn't have gone over the objections, I say he went around them.
Ummm...are you serious? Okay; scenario: We are attacked by terrorists from Germany and France. First step: Reaffirm ally status with Germany and France. Second step: Invade Spain. Logical? I guess to some people.
An unlikely scenario, as Germany and France are our so-called allies in a governmental/institutional sense,...as such it is their aim, albeit hesistant to r****d any terroristic cellular-like insurgence on their own accord, and their backing and commitment to repel terroristic growth and/or hosting is evident and has been demonstrated...However, these two countries don't vehemently agree with the logical strategic initiative against the terroristic problem by engaging in offensive tactics...and my contention is as offensive as an offensive stategy is...It is the only way to fight the war on terror... You are a smart man, Macbeth, much smarter than I, and you have evidently done historical-type research on the nature of conflicts or have at least examined them to some extent as evidenced by me from your well written posts, albeit grossly unparalled to my contentions and ideological views...but this war on terror is a new type of conflict unlike any which the past and present historians of mental capability have studied or analyzed...this is a new parasite that is attacking the peace-loving world, and the acts that have made sense towards resolution of typical conflict neither apply...You can't negotiate, or mediate or propagate with terrorists...Their aim is unconditional. They want your life. Debating that fact is past due, and insignificant. Their tactics are deplorable, sickening, but effective, because they rely on operating in a manner that is near opposite in nature as any civilized state, or nation is understood to conduct themselves by...The structure of a terroristic army is loose and cellular in nature as oposed to a centralized fighting force...Targets of opportunity is fair game...regardless of innocense and often regardless of reason... The tale of the Tank vs. the Tank-buster... Throughout the 20th century, there has been a cat and mouse game in the World Wars of several examples, with the most note-worthy being:...the Tank. Surely a significant tool of the Nazi's blitzkreig style of runnin all those who oppose down..and to clarify my example that being an offense versus a defense and which can defeat which...You have armies trying so hard to build the better tank, and armies trying so hard to build the better Tank-buster... Sometimes the offense being the Tank could make hay,...and sometimes the defense (Tank-buster) would have its way...well we got the world's most advanced tank now here in the good ole United States, at a time, when many military startegists have argued the time of the tank is over in this age of a more mobile and quicker fighting force... However, a more sinister offensive force is sweeping the world, not from Germany, but from mainly the Middle-eastern area...They, the terrorists want to kill you, and kill you good, along with your mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, son, daughter, and any children your future children's children may have...You like that? O you're innocent and don't agree with the strategy of our military...They don't care...You see terroristic entities are the new offensive force unlike any other that wants to run all those who cherish human rights and governmental entities which institute policies that are in keeping with human rights and good will down in the ground for good...whether the nation/state in question be democratic or socialistic in nature... The only way to justly and completely defend the terroristic tank is to turn the tables and be an offensive force, where the terrorists are unusually on the defensive...A position unfamiliar to them.
Okay, my mistake. Your question was over-arching but just as I ignored a comparison with Canada/Western Europe, you ignored the comparison with Saddam's Iraq... in identifying who is wearing the white hats.
whether we do or not is irrelevent It is how others perceive us that is relevent It is of little consequence that IRAQ was or wasn't a threat WE THOUGHT THEY WERE .. .that was good enough If others THINK we are threat nothing we can do or say will change it In their minds. . .WE ARE A THREAT Perception is reality Rocket River
No kidding, MacBeth was alluding to the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and the first thing we did was to affirm our alliances with Saudi Arabia. Then, we took the justifiable action of invading Afghanistan, where the terrorists WERE, after which we invaded Iraq, who had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
I completely understood what MacBeth may have alluded to...However you fail to see the significance of whether or not a nation's governmental/institutional backing of overall responsible and civilized conduct is of great merit...In dealing with Saudi Arabia, you have a good deal of differences, but you also have such positive attributes such as dialogue, openess, and a commitment to repel terroristic acts...These are positive steps towards a goal...While the results of vanquishing terroristic entities is debatable in Saudi Arabia, the country is farther ahead than most in the Middle-East when it comes to governmental/institutional commitment when it comes to cooperation, and a willingness to be a positive factor regarding the fight on terrorism. In Iraq, did you ever have a governmental/institutional backing of overall responsible and civilized conduct?...Don't even kidd yourself! What you had was a country that commited so many humanistic atrocities that it would be incalcuable to even think about it...You had a country that invaded another, ...that violated so many resolutions, you can't keep track of the times, and scoffed at international urges on being responsible and to act better than a criminalized nation...Sorry, the wacko was a dictator that ran his country like the criminal thug he was...Many convicts up in Huntsville would have been more responsible and better dictators! No doubt in my mind, a clear and present threat no more...but that's just my opinion...You might have thought he was really against harboring terrorists or his quest on mass destructive weapons was a cleverly contrived tactic on the United States' part...Regardless, ask the thousands upon thousands of tortured people and (if they could speak) deceased victims if Saddam and his boys was terroristic or not...I already explained why we must be offensive...For your sake and mine.
Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian regime, ruled by a monied elite, with little or no concern for the rest of the country. How is that being farther along? They say they are on our side in the war on terror. That's about all they have going for them as an example toward the rest of the middle east.
