JDG wrote:
I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when "we
invaded Iraq."
I think the label is appropriate any time one nation's military enters the other's territory uninvited, destroys stuff and kills people. Refusing this ordinary way of talking strikes me as less than straightforward.
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."
One nation can invade another without remaining as an occupying force. since you surely know this, what's your point?
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.
Neglecting it how? A justified invasion is an invasion. We invaded Grenada. We invaded France on D-Day. And so on.
I don't think that our current invasion and occupation of Iraq are *inherently* wrong, given the nature of the old regime. I do think that the way the war was justified to our nation and the world was terribly wrong; to me, it is fruit of a rotten tree. With what I know now (which may change, of course) I feel very betrayed, misled into believing there was much more of a threat than actually existed. I had visions of a ship sailing into San Francisco Bay and exploding a nuke.
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.
If it was an "attack," why even call it a counter-attack?
It seems crazy to me to justify attacking another on the basis of something they will do *later*, but that what you seem to be saying. Is that what you're saying?
When I read, "it has become clear..." I feel disrespect. Our perceptions are not facts. At least that's how I see it!
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 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."
The assertion that Iraq "attacked" the United States seem to me to be true only in a tactical sense. In the strategic sense, I think that Iraq most certainly has never attacked us. Yet when one states it as a general fact ("X attacked y"), the implication to me -- and I believe to most people -- is strategic. One must speak in specifics to make the context tactical, not make general statements.
In other words, now that you've brought up specific tactical attacks on our country, I agree with regard to those. But I still think your previous messages were Newspeak, as they used the general language of strategy, not tactics.
I'll add that when you said I was being sanctimonious, I felt a bit pissed off. You don't know what I'm feeling unless I tell you.
I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I believe that language is one of the most important tools for peacemaking.
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
