At 11:47 PM 12/17/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: >> So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a >> country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country? > >It now seems inescapable that you are saying the very thing I imagined: > >We invaded Iraq.
I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when "we invaded Iraq." If I wanted to be sanctimonious about it, I would call your statement here "newspeak, absolute newspeak" but I will avoid the sanctimony here. Iraq was never occupied by Coalition Forces, even though Coalition Forces did pass through Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait. In my mind, the Coalition actions do not describe an "invasion of Iraq." You are also neglecting the fact that the US had *every right* to be there. Under The San Francisco Treaty, which Iraq was and is an active signatory to, the US was authorized to use "all necessary means" to restore the government of Kuwait and to restore "international peace and security to the area." Indeed, the US still is so authorized. Anyhow, lets return to Dave Land's original statement: "George Bush lied to Congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us." Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that I disagree that George Bush lied. As I noted earlier, I objected to the assertion that "Iraq had never attacked us." In the subsequent discussion, it has become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider Iraq's counter-attack on the Dhahran Barracks to be "an attack on us." I disagree, but I concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point. Also in the subsequent discussion, it has also become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider a foiled attempted assassination attempt on a former US President to be "an attack on us." I disagree, but I will even concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point. (I would hope, though, that you and Dave Land could also concede that reasonable people can disagree on the above two points, and maybe be a little less sanctimonious about "never attacked us", or at least understand why I would strenusously object when someone posts a sanctimonious barb like "never attacked us" - but I'm not done yet.) Finally, the subsequent discussion has also considered Iraq's attempts to shoot down Coalition Aircraft patrolling the "No-Fly Zones" that were established to protect the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and other Shiites from any further attempts of genocide by Saddam Hussein. I am wondering how you and Dave Land can claim that these attempts to shoot down our (and Coalition) Aircraft does not constitute "an attack on us." One possibility is that you could claim that it is mere "sabre-rattling", but the term "sabre-rattling" comes from rattling a sabre within its scabbard - it hardly seems an appropriate phrase to describe shooting with live bullets and murderous intent. I suppose another possibility is that you could argue, as you do above that a "counter-attack" is not an "attack". This would describe the "No-Fly Zone", however, as "continuing action" of Gulf War 1 - and therfore, you would not be able to describe George W. Bush as leading us to war in Iraq, because we were already at War. Nevertheless, I think that under an examination of the total body of evidence - the strike against Dharhan, the attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush, the shooting down of an unmanned US spy plane, and the regular attempts of Iraq to shoot down our manned aircraft that it is somewhat sanctimoniously over-the-top to describe Iraq as "a country that had never attacked us." JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
