I was thinking about this yesterday. The invasion of Iraq is a new kind of war. The Pre-Emptive War. AFAIK, hasn’t been done before.
You are correct of course in suggesting that the Iraqi government COULD choose to invade the USA and remove Bush, but that would be stupid. Because if they want to remove Bush for invading, or now, occupying Iraq, why wouldn’t they just ASK THE US TO REMOVE THEIR TROOPS? WOuldn’t that be loads and loads easier??
All they have to do is ask.
My bet is that they won’t.[/quote]
I agree with you. It’d be a lot easier to ask, and I don’t think they will. Unless someone like al-Sadr gets into power.
My point was just to use Fred’s reasoning to show how the US (or any other country for that matter) could be invaded, and, based on his reasoning, everyone would just have to accept it. And those that fought against it (ie US citizens) would be considered insurgents or terrorists.
Before you think I’m too crazy, I know full well it wouldn’t and couldn’t ever happen. I was just making a point.
I was thinking about this yesterday. The invasion of Iraq is a new kind of war. The Pre-Emptive War. AFAIK, hasn’t been done before.
You are correct of course in suggesting that the Iraqi government COULD choose to invade the USA and remove Bush, but that would be stupid. Because if they want to remove Bush for invading, or now, occupying Iraq, why wouldn’t they just ASK THE US TO REMOVE THEIR TROOPS? WOuldn’t that be loads and loads easier??
All they have to do is ask.
My bet is that they won’t.[/quote]
I agree with you. It’d be a lot easier to ask, and I don’t think they will. Unless someone like al-Sadr gets into power.
My point was just to use Fred’s reasoning to show how the US (or any other country for that matter) could be invaded, and, based on his reasoning, everyone would just have to accept it. And those that fought against it (ie US citizens) would be considered insurgents or terrorists.
Before you think I’m too crazy, I know full well it wouldn’t and couldn’t ever happen. I was just making a point.[/quote]
I hear ya. Fred gets all itchy and shit when people start taling about totally impossible probabilities. lol
And if Al-sadr gets in the top spot, I doubt he’ll EVER make an outdoor speech.
Hey Fred, this may cheer you up some:[quote]
The Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in a serious condition after three failed operations and complications from an intestinal infection,[/quote] telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … stro16.xml
Not sure whether they would be considered insugents or not. I suppose that depends on whether you considered the occupying forces to be a “government” or a “lawful authority.” They would only be terrorists, however, if they intentionally targeted civilians. (Intentionally targeted – so we’re not talking about civilians inadvertently killed, but civilians killed because the goal was to kill civilians.)
The “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” meme deserves to stay in the dustbin where it currently resides. Argue about whether those fighting are on the “right” side or on the “wrong” side, and apply your own labels. “Insurgent” “rebel” “freedom fighter” what have you. Fine. Anyone in Iraq who attacks Iraqi soldiers or coalition soldiers may well fit any of these labels. But the word “terrorist” is pretty clear. It’s about making a conscious decision not to go after the armed people who you are actually fighting, but rather to kill innocent third parties in the hope that your murders will convince the people with guns to go away (or do whatever else it is that you want them to do). It’s about deliberately killing innocent women and children with a bomb in a crowded produce market, rather than trying to kill the soldiers who (in your view) are occupying your country.
I’d agree with this. However, in Iraq at the moment, attacks against both the US and the Iraqi forces, are usually referred to as terrorist attacks by the US govt and MSM. My point was made with that in mind.
Sorry the attack on Serbia over Kosovo by NATO was endorsed though not officially approved by the UN. It predates the Iraq action by four years.[/quote]
Actually, the war in Iraq would not qualify as a pre-emptive war. A case might be made for it being a preventive war but that is probably open to debate. A pre-emptive war is “an attack initiated in belief that an enemy attack is imminent”. A preventive war is “a war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk”.
I am not sure if the Serbia attack qualifies as either since the attacking forces were not under threat of an enemy attack by Serbia (at least as far as I know)
Of course the correct labelling of the military action is not related to the morality or wisdom of that attack but I thought it was important to use the correct terms. Sorry if I am being to caught up on semantics.
The definitions came from the Department of Defence Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. Sorry no link right now but if you search for it I am sure you will find it.
I’d agree with this. However, in Iraq at the moment, attacks against both the US and the Iraqi forces, are usually referred to as terrorist attacks by the US govt and MSM. My point was made with that in mind.[/quote]
Fair enough, cfimages. I agree that the different terms are often used in the media (intentionally or unintentionally) without much regard to their meaning.
[quote=“fred smith”]a. are rational actors
b. have any understanding of how global diplomatic affairs are conducted
c. have even the most basic inkling about geostrategy and policies as they are conducted by state actors
d. have the good will to recognize legitimate difference in policy views
e. have any wish to understand that the actions of the Bush administration would probably have been taken by a Democrat administration following 911. After all, we have numerous statements by Democrat officials and leaders demanding (not calling for) but DEMANDING such action against Saddam. Naturally, their forgetfulness at previous statements must be put down to a lack of sufficient ginko biloba in their diets.
[/quote]
a. - subjective
b. - subjective
c. - subjective
d. - Just because I (can’t speak for other “lefties”) disagree with something, doesn’t mean that I don’t recognise it as a legitimate view. I do. I just don’t happen to agree with it.
e. - I agree with you here. The Dems would have done the same thing. I still don’t agree with the actions that were taken. If I were American, I wouldn’t vote for them. (I’m Australian BTW - you’ll no doubt know that Australia is a part of the coalition, one of the few countries that has troops in Iraq, and in fact, the first firefight of the Iraq campaign, which occurred before the bombing started, involved the Australian SAS ie special forces).
I’d like to hear more, a lot more about this analogy and how you think it is accurate or relevant. Please do share.[/quote]
Shit, I knew that if I said that without a link I’d be in trouble.
Ok, but patience please. It’s been a couple of weeks since I read the comparisons. I’m going to need to search again for the sources, as I just read them, but didn’t bookmark them.
[quote]Shit, I knew that if I said that without a link I’d be in trouble.
Ok, but patience please. It’s been a couple of weeks since I read the comparisons. I’m going to need to search again for the sources, as I just read them, but didn’t bookmark them.[/quote]
No problem. Take your time. My patience is as boundless as the ocean. Hell, I have been discussing philosophy with Bob all these months. IF that does not underline my omnipatience… nothing does…
Fred, it appears that I’ve failed in my attempts to find the articles I read that made this claim. As I mentioned, it was a couple of weeks ago and I didn’t bookmark them. I do know that I came upon them while searching for something else, but I’m having no luck in re-finding them. The closest I got was the following from the CS Monitor, but it’s quite a bit older so perhaps it’s no longer relevant. Personally, I wouldn’t think that what was relevant in Iraq in 2003 would necessarily still be so. But I’ll link it anyway.
