| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2007 05:47:21 PM · #51 |
I know you can pretty easily discredit the sources if you like, but Dick Cheney seems to think it was an invasion, in this discussion with Rush Limbaugh
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070405-3.html
THE VICE PRESIDENT: [...] This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 17:48:41.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:49:12 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by RonB:
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples. |
How about if Country A's armed forces entered Country B for the purpose of overthrowing its sovereign government when Country B posed no military threat to Country A? Would that be considered an act of war by most civilized peoples? |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:51:37 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by RonB:
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples. |
Well the UN isn't a country. Got any other examples of when another country "intruded", "infringed", "violated", "enter with armed forcesd", "encroach upon", "trespassed", or "interfere with" without the permission of the country they were going into?
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 17:52:19.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:51:58 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion. |
I'd be interested in seeing an example of an invasion that occurred without a reason or purpose. |
I didn't say that invasions have occurred without a reason or purpose. I said it isn't necessary to SET OUT a reason or purpose in order to effect an invasion, as the definitions you supplied were implying. The U.S. certainly effected an invasion of Iraq according to the definitions of the word "invade" that I cited. |
I think it is required, for any of a number of reasons. Domestic political backing (initially), making sure other countries aren't going to attack you in turn to prevent it from happening, keeping your allies as allies, etc, etc. There has to be a reason. From 'they are an imminent threat' to 'they have it, we need it, we're taking it' there is always a reason and it is always given because there is some necessity for doing so. |
Yes, I agree with you that for political purposes a reason for an invasion SHOULD be stated, and a reason invariably IS stated. But that wasn't what Ron and I were arguing about. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:53:37 PM · #55 |
| Gee, you'd think a registered linguist would know how to use the word properly ... my faith in academe is forever undermined ... :-( |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:54:31 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by RonB:
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples. |
Well the UN isn't a country. Got any other examples of when another country "intruded", "infringed", "violated", "enter with armed forcesd", "encroach upon", "trespassed", or "interfere with" without the permission of the country they were going into? |
Britain vs Argentina. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:58:26 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Britain vs Argentina. |
You mean when they invaded the Falkland islands and started the Falkland War ?
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 17:59:50.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:59:05 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Britain vs Argentina. |
You mean when they invaded the Falkland islands ? |
Yes. I don't think they asked permission. I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:00:42 PM · #59 |
ETA: Too slow. Must avoid yankoing. :P
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 18:02:21.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:00:45 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Britain vs Argentina. |
You mean when they invaded the Falkland islands ? |
Yes. I don't think they asked permission. I could be wrong. |
yes and it was considered an act of war. Good job on not following the thread though.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:10:10 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Britain vs Argentina. |
You mean when they invaded the Falkland islands ? |
Yes. I don't think they asked permission. I could be wrong. |
yes and it was considered an act of war. Good job on not following the thread though. |
Honestly I just get tired and post some insanity out of spite. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:13:35 PM · #62 |
How about the Anschluss? Invasion without war.
I win! |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:35:58 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. It seems that no matter what the U.S. does, it is said to be wrong because it's too little or too much, too soon or too late, too involved or too apathetic. |
Can't recall any criticism leveled at the Bush administration for starting the Iraq War because "it's too little or too much, too soon or too late, too involved or too apathetic."
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why it seems to operate not in accordance with popular opinion, but in accordance with the perceived need to protect its own interests. |
Perhaps your last sentence should have ended: in accordance with the perceived need to protect its own special interests? That would be more accurate in explaining the invasion of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 06:51:38 PM · #64 |
| Iraq invading Kuwait when? (Approx 1992) |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 08:24:47 PM · #65 |
| this thread is the bizarro version of this one |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 10:30:04 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples. |
How about if Country A's armed forces entered Country B for the purpose of overthrowing its sovereign government when Country B posed no military threat to Country A? Would that be considered an act of war by most civilized peoples? |
Yes, Judith, I believe it would IF it was know for a fact that Country B posed no military threat to Country A. In the case of Iraq, however, that was not a known fact. The vast majority of the intelligence, coupled with Hussein's refusal to permit unfettered access to the WMD inspectors and his continual violations of U.N. mandates, lead to the belief AT THE TIME that Hussein DID pose a threat. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:39:04 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
One country can "intrude", "infringe", "violate", "enter with armed forces", "encroach upon", "trespass", or "interfere with" without creating war. In fact, U.N. peacekeepers have done ALL of those things and their actions have NOT been considered acts of war.
On the other hand, if a country's armed forces entered another country for the purpose of plundering, pillaging, occupying, or taking possession, it would be considered as an act of war by most civilized peoples. |
How about if Country A's armed forces entered Country B for the purpose of overthrowing its sovereign government when Country B posed no military threat to Country A? Would that be considered an act of war by most civilized peoples? |
Yes, Judith, I believe it would IF it was know for a fact that Country B posed no military threat to Country A. In the case of Iraq, however, that was not a known fact. The vast majority of the intelligence, coupled with Hussein's refusal to permit unfettered access to the WMD inspectors and his continual violations of U.N. mandates, lead to the belief AT THE TIME that Hussein DID pose a threat. |
The nature of the threat from Iraq (if an actual military threat to the U.S. ever existed) did not, in fact, change one iota between the time of the invasion and going back to several months before 9/11, when both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were making public statements that the policy of containment was working well.
Some of Colin Powell's statements regarding the U.S. Iraq policy before 9/11:
January 10, 2001 - âSaddam Husseinâs forces are in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors at this point. We have been successful, through the sanctions regime, to really shut off most of the revenue that will be going to build hisârebuild his military.â
February 23, 2001 - âThough [the Iraqis] may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been. We ought to declare this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.â
February 24, 2001 - âHe (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.â
May 15, 2001 - Saddam Hussein has not been able to âbuild his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destructionâ for âthe last 10 years.â The sanctions policy has successfully kept him âin a box.â
A statement by Condoleezza Rice (and I can find more statements by her on this topic):
July 2001 - âSaddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.â
Your assertion that the nature of the threat was not known has been so thoroughly discredited that I really can't believe we have to have this discussion again. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:46:26 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
this thread is the bizarro version of this one |
Okay, that made me laugh out loud. :) |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:48:22 PM · #69 |
You are correct - you'd THINK that a registered linguist would know how to use the word properly. You'd also think that he wouldn't invent and then attribute an assertion that was not made.
He establishes that he distorts the truth in his very first sentence - he says:
"In his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging."
But President Bush asserted no such thing. In the referenced speech, President Bush never once used any form or derivative of the word 'invade'.
You can check it out yourself - here is the transcript.
Since Bush did not say it, it does, indeed, appears that Mr. Chomsky DID use the word improperly. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:57:41 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. It seems that no matter what the U.S. does, it is said to be wrong because it's too little or too much, too soon or too late, too involved or too apathetic. |
Can't recall any criticism leveled at the Bush administration for starting the Iraq War because "it's too little or too much, too soon or too late, too involved or too apathetic." |
John Kerry said it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"
Vice Admiral JACK SHANAHAN ( US Navy (Ret.)) said "the Bush Administration's obsession with Saddam Hussein took us into the wrong war at the wrong time."
I can't think of any other explanation for the phrase "wrong time" if it doesn't mean either too soon or too late. |
|
|
|
12/08/2007 10:56:46 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Yes, Judith, I believe it would IF it was know for a fact that Country B posed no military threat to Country A. In the case of Iraq, however, that was not a known fact. The vast majority of the intelligence, coupled with Hussein's refusal to permit unfettered access to the WMD inspectors and his continual violations of U.N. mandates, lead to the belief AT THE TIME that Hussein DID pose a threat. |
I'm sure that most everyone is aware of the history already, but if you're interested in revisiting the issue of Iraq's refusal to permit unfettered access for weapons inspectors, here is a complete timeline of U.N. weapons inspections, beginning in about January of 2002.
Excerpt:
End of December 2002 (several months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq) - After examining more than 200 sites, UN weapons inspectors say that despite unfettered access to all Iraqi facilities, they have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or any programs aimed at developing such weapons. Several of the suspected weapons sites have been visited multiple times. Inspectors say that they have exhausted the leads provided by US intelligence and complain that Washington resists requests to provide them with more information. [BBC, 12/26/2001; BBC, 12/31/2001; Los Angeles Times, 12/31/2001; Guardian, 1/3/2002; Agence France-Presse, 12/29/2002; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/30/2002; Independent, 1/1/2003] The San Francisco Chronicle reports: âUN spokesmen in Baghdad admit they have largely exhausted their list of possible weapons sites and must make repeat visits to stay busy. They have asked the United States to provide intelligence to help identify new sites. Although the Bush administration recently said it would share some secrets with the United Nations, it appears to have turned over little so far.â [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/30/2002] And an unnamed weapons inspector tells the Los Angeles Times: âWe havenât found an iota of concealed material yet. Even private facilities which are not part of their state-run military industrial complex open up for usâlike magic.⦠We canât look for something which we donât know about. If the United States wants us to find something, they should open their intelligence file and share it with us so that we know where to go for it.â¦. By being silent, we may create the false illusion that we did uncover something.⦠But I must say that if we were to publish a report now, we would have zilch to put in it.â [Los Angeles Times, 12/31/2001] The London Observer will report in early January, âSome of the inspectors are understood to be convinced that their mission has become a âset-up jobâ and America will attack Iraq regardless of what they find.â [Observer, 1/5/2002] |
|
|
|
12/08/2007 12:32:59 PM · #72 |
I must admit - the response that the OP elicits in me is slight embarrassment. I have a lot of time for Americans and respect for the USA (despite what some people believe). However, I don't find the sentiments posted by the OP very becoming.
Perhaps I am too cynical, but one area where the USA appears to lead the world is in the art of public relations and spin. I will make some general observations.
The ability to criticise your own nation state is not a negative or unpatriotic thing. Criticism can be constructive, and without it democracy falters.
These stories are intended to provoke a patriotic response in an American audience. Those chanting "USA USA" have been successfully manipulated into a moment of patriotic ecstasy. However, they have also allowed their ability to criticise their state to be impaired.
Rather than taking stories such as these at face value, it is often useful to consider the subtexts being conveyed by the author/speaker, their motives, and the intended audience. The stories given here are all designed to generate a patriotic response in Americans. They have been heavily âdesignedâ.
The Colin Powell quote is taken out of context and edited/massaged for maximum effect. It can be found about 2/3 of the way through this page . If you read the question from George Carey, IMO Colin Powell does not deal well with the question and thus falls back on this bit of defensive rhetoric.
The aircraft carrier quote (which sounds apocryphal) appears to be designed to make the US reader marvel at the power of the US military effort. It belittles the valid criticism sometimes levelled at the way in which the US delivers aid in a partly self serving fashion, and the militarily aggressive stance that the US has adopted internationally in the last 5 years.
The story on the English language is a very old joke and so apocryphal. As others have pointed out, it ignores the fact that the US can hardly be blessed with a morally pure desire to preserve democracy and protect Europe from fascism â it joined the effort more than two years after the war started and after Germany declared war on the US (not the other way around).
Maybe it is worth critically assessing what you are reading and how others may be trying to manipulate you before evidencing it through mindless patriotism. Seeing how easily people can be misdirected like this is disturbing rather than admirable.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2007 12:55:44 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
...
The story on the English language is a very old joke and so apocryphal. As others have pointed out, it ignores the fact that the US can hardly be blessed with a morally pure desire to preserve democracy and protect Europe from fascism â it joined the effort more than two years after the war started and after Germany declared war on the US (not the other way around).
Maybe it is worth critically assessing what you are reading and how others may be trying to manipulate you before evidencing it through mindless patriotism. Seeing how easily people can be misdirected like this is disturbing rather than admirable. |
I'd agree with that last statement whole-heartedly, and applaud this excellent post.
Regarding when (and why) America officially entered WWII, it's worth noting that Roosevelt (and others) wanted to be in that fight early on; they saw the importance of it. But the American people were still reeling from WWI and the Great Depression, and were in an isolationist mood.
It's true that we entered the war only after Germany declared war on us, but Germany did THAT because WE declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, and Japan was one of the Axis powers, so Germany was obligated to do that. Germany would have greatly preferred we stay out of the war in Europe altogether, and had (I believe) some hope that our being involved in a 2-front war (Japan in the Pacific, Germany in Europe) would render us beatable.
Interestingly, their is anecdotal (and possibly actual) evidence that Roosevelt and his advisors were aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to warn the commanding officers there because they realized the American people needed a kick in the nuts to get them behind a war effort.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2007 01:13:30 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
These stories are intended to provoke a patriotic response in an American audience. Those chanting "USA USA" have been successfully manipulated into a moment of patriotic ecstasy. |
As usual, a well thought-out post. I just want to mention that StrikeSlip chanted "USA" ironically, since he's Canadian with (from what I gather) no special love for the current administration. |
|
|
|
12/08/2007 01:43:35 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding when (and why) America officially entered WWII, |
I fully acknowledge that US support was largely present long before it entered the war (and as such it was a critical part of the war effort mounted by Britain and its empire). I simplified the reasons for the US entry into the war - the politics of the time are fascinating though (then as now, never as pure or as simple as politicians like to portray them).
Message edited by author 2007-12-08 13:44:04.
|
|
