Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "So let me get this straight.. You would be utterly unwilling to take on a government that actually sponsored, and/or supported the 9/11 attack upon the US??"
You should try reading my posts in total before jumping the gun, LOL.
Re: "You sure could have fooled me."
Not a difficult task.
Re: "Using the logic you've expressed, the odds are that the US would have made a separate peace with Imperial Japan, rather than fight them."
After Pearl Harbor, the US had a definite and well defined enemy to fight. Under that condition, the Bilow standard of "revenge" applies. We had our revenge.
With the WTC attack, there is no definite and well defined enemy to fight. We can obtain some revenge against "Al Qaeda", but without very friendly relations in the region where Al Qaeda hangs out, catching Osama bin Laden is, as Bush has discovered, somewhat problematical. So my first complaint about a heavy handed war on "terror" is that it is ineffective at obtaining revenge.
My second complaint is that our occupation tactics, which have been proven to be a failure by the Israelis, generate more hatred for us not just in Iraq, but in other parts of the world as well. The war on "terror" took a hit on the chin with the Iraq liberation.
I wouldn't complain about the deaths and expense of the Iraq occupation if it were effective at obtaining revenge for the WTC. But the truth is that Iraq, Iraq's previous government, and Iraqi citizens had zero to do with the WTC attack. And so our casualties are not providing us with any advantage in the war against Al Qaeda, nor are they obtaining revenge. They're a waste, and I don't like waste.
What's more the Iraqi people know that they didn't have anything to do with the WTC attack. They know that there are no WMDs in Iraq. And they know that our attack on them was unjust. In that circumstance, when a nation has been attacked unjustly, it is only natural that the nation's right wing nuthatches (on our side we call them "patriots") gather together to fight against the invader. Especially when the invader appears weak.
I guess if I only has one neuron, I'd have trouble seeing the difference between Pearl Harbor and the WTC attack.
Re: "The 2,000 lives lost at Pearl Harbor would not have justified the 300,000 lives lost fighting the war."
I disagree. If a nation doesn't defend itself when it is attacked by another nation, it invites even worse stuff later on. The problem with the WTC attack is that we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked by, at most, a few hundred individuals.
Those 19 guys on the airliners were not members of a foreign government. They were not soldiers in a military. Yes, they killed a lot of people, but as you yourself know, people die all the time. By contrast, the thousands of Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor were military soldiers, under orders by their government to do so.
Every nation gets occasionally attacked by terrorists, and this has been going on for thousands of years. WW1 was started when Austria insisted on revenge against Serbia when a Serbian terrorist killed the Archduke Ferdinand. I'm sure the Austrian monarchy felt just like you do, that revenge should be obtained not just against the individual who committed the crime, but also against the whole nation that he had lived in. You and Emperor Franz Josef are / were both blinded by the inability to distinguish between a nation and an individual.
Maybe Franz Josef, like you, had ulterior motives for attacking Serbia. While you intend on remaking Iraq in your own image, LOL, maybe Franz Josef planned on picking up a little territory in revenge for the loss of his nephew.
But what neither you nor Emperor Josef realize is that humans do not support collective punishment. The Serbians felt that their country should not be punished for the actions of an individual who wasn't even a member of the government or armed services. He was just an 18-year-old fuzz-ball brain student, already dying of tuberculosis.
Austria's attack on Serbia was unjust, and was condemned by most of the world. I'm certain that if you'd lived in Austria back then you'd have been clamoring for the ultimatum to be so harsh that Serbia could not possibly accept it. And then you'd have been on pins and needles praying for the war that would allow Austria to regain its honor. But the resulting war killed a hell of a lot more people than the "war party" in Austria planned for, and by the time it was over, the Austrian empire was no more.
I doubt that the neocon mistakes in the Middle East will have as dire consequences for us as what happened to Austria. But our true national honor (not the "my country right or right" BS that you propound) has been besmirched by the long litany of lies that got us into this war, and our eventual retreat will make us look like weaklings as well as fools. This makes me sick, but the only thing I can do to reduce our punishment is to get us out as quickly as possible. Unlike the Israelis in Palestine, we do not have to stay in Iraq and won't.
By the way, I should go collect up some of your quotes early on about how the war should be run. You were right in saying that a good tactic would be for us to get troops from Arab countries to assist us. But you understand human nature so poorly that you thought that the Arab countries would be willing to do this. Now it's August, and still not a hint of any Arab assistance, or any significant assistance from anyone other than Britain.
So which is it? Is the Bush administration so incompetent that they were clueless about getting Arab assistance in pacifying Iraq? Or are you incompetent in understanding the motivations of the Arab countries in turning our requests (if any) down? My guess is that since it is so obvious that we would be turned down (with much Arab laughter), that our diplomats haven't even asked.
Austrian patriots, certain that their cause was just, undoubtedly expected the rest of the world to see it that way (with us or against us), and were surprised when the chips fell where they did. You're kind of surprised too.
-- Carl |
