At 11:04 AM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett 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.
Later in this post, you make a distinction between "tactical" and
"strategic" language. Do you agree that while US actions in Iraq in Gulf
War I could be called an invasion in the "tactical" sense, they would not
be described as an invasion in the "strategic" sense?
>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.
I'm not sure why you feel betrayed here. In what way did you
specficially have your perceptions of Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat to
the United States changed from 2003 to 2004?
>> 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?
Well, for one, you and Dave Land have disputed that it was an "attack."
Since the word "attack" is disputed, I am choosing another word that I feel
cannot be disputed, i.e. "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?
I think that this paragraph is probably at the center of our disagreements.
At no point in this thread have I argued for a justification of Gulf War
II. I cannot fathom why ou think that I "seem to be saying" a
justification for Gulf War II. I also cannot fathom your line about "on
the basis of something they will do *later*". This was written in
response to a paragraph I wrote about the attacks on the Dhahran Barracks,
something that happened in the past.... and again not in the context of
justifiying Gulf War II, but in the context of disproving Dave Land's
assertion that Iaq is a country that "never had attacked us."
>When I read, "it has become clear..." I feel disrespect. Our
>perceptions are not facts. At least that's how I see it!
I can't explain this. I was writing that your position had become clear.
If I have misrepresented your position, that would be one thing. Unless
you want to get metaphysical on me, I believe that your position on this
subject had been made clear by yourself.
>> 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'm presuming that there is a typo in your last sentence. You seem to be
accusing me of using the language of "tactics", not "strategy."
Anyhow, I think that there is, if anything, a stronger case that Iraq has
attacked the US in the strategic sense, rather than the tactical sense.
Iraq attacked Kuwait, and was threatening the remaining oilfields of the
Persian Gulf. This was a direct assault on the US's interests, our
economy, and our way of life. That is why US National Security Directives
list "prevention of a regional hegemon" in the Middle East right up at the
top of our foreign policy priority "chips." So, while the invasion of
Kuwait was not a tactical attack on the United States, it certainly was a
strategic attack on the United States, which is why we mobilized against it
the way we did... as opposed to see the Yugoslavian invasion of
Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Rwandan invasion of Zaire.
>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.
And I am telling you that I felt that you were heaping sanctimony upon me.
JDG
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
