Better Late Than Never: Some Rants on War Rhetoric - Page 2

Berzerker · May 1, 2003, 21:10

I was a bit amazed by the "logic" that supporting the troops meant sending them off to risk their lives in war. Who supported the soldiers who eventually died in Vietnam? The people who bought LBJ's lies and allowed him to get 58,000 Americans killed there or the people who fought his policies? And if Iraq becomes a "democracy" and an islamic fundamentalist state is voted into power like in Iran, what will these supporters of the war say? Now they are claiming victory and some are even gloating, but it took ~2 decades for the US involvement in Afghanistan to come back and bite us.

Oerdin · May 1, 2003, 21:25

Make a democracy which has a manditory seporation of religion and state then model the Iraqi military on Turkey's and have them enforce the constitution.

Berzerker · May 1, 2003, 21:50

If the majority shi'ite population wants an islamic state, then they will vote it into power in the first "democratic" election. I was hoping they learned via Saddam's oppression why freedom matters, but I have my doubts. History is replete with examples of oppressed peoples who got the opportunity to do their own oppressing and took it.

Oerdin · May 1, 2003, 21:53

What I am subjesting is we set up a system very semiliar to the Turkish model. Are you at all aware of what happens to democratically elected fundies in Turkey?

The short answer is they don't stay in office very long because the military... *ahem* enforces the constitutional seporation of religion and state.

Imran Siddiqui · May 2, 2003, 00:54

It's a very good way to do things in Muslim states! Ataturk knew the problem and attacked it.

orange · May 2, 2003, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

When I was in college all the parties used to give away "Naty Ice", as it was called, because it was 7.0% ABV and was just about the cheapest beer like substance you could buy.

But it tastes bad, bad, bad...

exactly.

Bosh · May 2, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

No Blood For Oil
This slogan has irritated me to no end. I do think that oil was a motive for invasion, though not a primary concern and not really in the traditional sense (i.e. oil as a mechanism to control other states, not just for pork). The slogan pretty much mindlessly paints pro-war people as fighting for pork, and doesn't actually address the gov't stated causi belli (WMD's and Ba'athist tyranny). The anti-war movement, in general, has been ineffective in articulating why the gov't was wrong on these points.

Its really good to hear another radical saying this, the above is pretty much exactly what I think. The only real connection to oil is that oil makes the whole region very strategic, which kicks up the US willingness to engage in intervention up a knotch, but its hardly a reason in and of itself.

LoneWolf · May 2, 2003, 02:05

Boshko: Well said, of course it is true that not every square inch of the globe is of equal interest to us (or anyone), but that doesn't mean its the "only" or even the "main" reason!
There are strategic areas, and there are non-strategic areas. Would those who raise this objection prefer that we just intervene EVERYWHERE?

Dis · May 2, 2003, 02:35

but actually the war could have been about oil. We need that oil if we ever go to war with Saudi Arabia- which could happen.

That slogan didn't bother me much, because it was partially true. It was about oil. We wouldn't have done this if it wasn't an oil rich country. because we are using the oil money to rebuild iraq. We wouldn't have done it if we had to use our own money to rebuild Iraq.

Zero · May 2, 2003, 02:44

Wow Boshko, thanks. Someone understands finally when I say "support the troops" statement is ****ing retarded.

I agree. Its definitely from phobic reaction of vietnam.

Dis · May 2, 2003, 02:45

I don't support the troops but I am in favour of the war

Urban Ranger · May 2, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
The slogan pretty much mindlessly paints pro-war people as fighting for pork, and doesn't actually address the gov't stated causi belli (WMD's and Ba'athist tyranny). The anti-war movement, in general, has been ineffective in articulating why the gov't was wrong on these points.

1. What "WMD?" Or rather, where are they?

2. Tyranny? What gave the US power to meddle in another country?

Dis · May 3, 2003, 02:10

I believe that power comes from the president of the United States.