I emphasize that the following is not an attempt to politicize a tragedy, but merely an observation about human nature based on some pretty indisputable facts.
Right now this country is reeling, trying to make sense of the senseless deaths of thirty-two innocent people who died due to the actions of a single obsessed, unhinged individual. We call this a national tragedy.
In Iraq, it’s called a Monday. Day after day after day, the populace of that wartorn country has to deal with losses as calamitous and pointless.
Now…what typically happens in a tragedy such as this? Well, in America, sooner or later, the search for blame begins. It’s human nature. You can’t blame the perp: He’s dead. So we search for someone still alive to vent our spleens upon. Someone to whom we can say, “If it weren’t for you, then this wouldn’t have happened.” When the Twin Towers fell, that blame played out in Senate hearings. The blame for Virginia Tech will inevitably play out as well, with leading candidates for excoriation being (a) the school, (b) the shooter’s parents, (c) anyone who advocates easy and legal access to guns.
With all that as a given, doesn’t it make sense that the Iraqis, being as human as us, would be looking for someone to blame for an environment where our aberration is their way of life? Who are they going to target? Saddam? He’s dead. Bombers? They’re usually dead after the attack as well. Who’s left?
Us.
And that anger manifests itself in the only way it can: More violence against those whom they feel were responsible.
Which is why anyone who thinks that there’s going to be an end in the cycle of violence against Americans in Iraq is betting against human nature itself. The blame will continue. The anger will continue. And the deaths will continue. We will try to expunge our sense of dismay and go back to a state of normalcy. For Iraq, death, anger, blame and revenge IS the state of normalcy.
That’s why they hate us.
In case you were wondering.
PAD
• 
I think what is disturbing about the V-Tech killings is how the killer is always labeled a “South Korean”. yes, he is, but how it’s said is like trying to point out ” he wasn’t an AMERICAN”. Almost like trying to justify that it had to be a crazy foreignore. His place of origin seemed so prominate in the news. It really does give excuse for people to take their outrage and direct it at a group and not an individual.
I think what is disturbing about the V-Tech killings is how the killer is always labeled a “South Korean”. yes, he is, but how it’s said is like trying to point out ” he wasn’t an AMERICAN”. Almost like trying to justify that it had to be a crazy foreignore. His place of origin seemed so prominate in the news. It really does give excuse for people to take their outrage and direct it at a group and not an individual.
Meh.
I’m a professional minority in real life (that’s sarcasm, boys and girls), and I’m afraid that I’m not particularly worked up over that. Majority of the other mass killers like that have been white (and there’ve been jokes about that, as a negative stereotype on whites). And that’s a difference that’s noteworthy from other similar killers.
And if they’re going to go over his background (as we, as a society, inevitably do), you can hardly miss the fact of his immigration.
On the other hand, I can certain condemn this sort of mass media/Internet identification.
“All Orientals look alike to me” indeed.
Yeah, gee, I can’t see any reason why people would suspect Schlussel of hatemongering. /sarcasm.
From a Canadian.
Why people hate you:
You’re too homophobic.
You’re too open and accepting of gay culture.
You’re too Christian.
You;re not Christian enough .
You’re too religous.
You are too hedonistic.
You’re too fat
You’re too obsessed with body image.
You are so hung up on gun rights
You are so hung up on freedom of speech rights.
You are too multicultural.
You are so anti – illegal immigrant.
You invade other countries.
Your military leaves countries.
I hope you get my point.
Maybe the question PAD should ask and other citizens of the west shpuld ask is…..
Why do we hate ourselves??
PS. I don’t hate Americans or Westerners. We are the shining light for the rest of the world.
Why is everybody having a point-by-point discussion with Pat Nolan when he doesn’t have any points?
“Why do we hate ourselves??
PS. I don’t hate Americans or Westerners. We are the shining light for the rest of the world.”
Why are the only two options self hatred or narcissism?
“Couldn’t we at least try and see whats up
there?”
If I were president, I’d have clear Presidential Statement to answer this. As it is, I’m just a video guy, but my answer’s the same.
No.
Gods, me as President…maybe I should write THAT into my horror script.
Um, maybe I’ve got my history screwed up, but weren’t WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the ‘leadership’ of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time? When the US was digging up drums of “WMD” in 2003, weren’t those drums shown on the news labeled in ENGLISH? Our memory of Middle-East History seems to end in 2001.
If by “we” you mean the United States, no. If you mean our allies in Europe, yes.
The vast majority of gas and biological warefare material was shipped from Europe. In fairness, many of these were probably illegal, so the blame cannot be always placed on the governments of those countries.
Posted by Alan Coil at April 20, 2007 05:57 PM
Why is everybody having a point-by-point discussion with Pat Nolan when he doesn’t have any points?
I dont know, why dont you ask Pat Nolan.
“But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us?”
I does not matter if all or even most do, it can be a small minority. In the end if even that small few feel that way and act on it the cycle will continue.
I think PAD’s observation here is 100% on the money. Right or wrong, he nailed human nature.
They hate you – OK, us – because you are ‘the super power’.
Because you interfere, because you side with those they consider their enemies, because historically they’ve been exploited, manipulated and condescended to at pretty much every turn.
They hate you for everything you have done and for everything you haven’t done that in any way affects them.
Because hate doesn’t care about right or wrong, or good intentions, or logic, or common sense.
A better question is why does it keep surprising you that they feel that way?
Cheers.
Good point Peter J. Poole. You should also add that the hatred toward the US from te Islamic world is also the result of their own sense of impotence and frustration over life in the Islamic world.
There are some similarities between the state of mind of the murderer on Virginia and some of the Islamic radicals.
Hey, don’t forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there’s some way we can work Global Warming in there too…
-Rex Hondo-
Sorry, Rex. Us Pagans already took a bum rap for bad crops wierd acting kids and the sudden mystery pregnancy of the minister’s housemaid. Didn’t work out to well for us.
>Because you interfere, because you side with those they consider their enemies, because historically they’ve been exploited, manipulated and condescended to at pretty much every turn.
Funny you should type that. Because, though I generally despised former Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien, there was ONE time when I was actually proud of him.
Ironically, it was for doing something which set off a storm of protests – both here and, to a lesser degree, in the US – due to a [there’s that phrase again] knee-jerk, emotional response to a logically thought-out comment.
Many people interpreted the comment as saying that the victims of the 2001 attacks had been asking for it.
Not at all.
What he DID say – and I salute him for having the spine to stand up and do so – was if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples’ affairs, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes a poke at it. Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.
The only reason it didn’t happen to Britain in its colonial days was that communications and other technologies didn’t exist to allow the third world countries to organize the means to strike back.
What he DID say – and I salute him for having the spine to stand up and do so – was if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples’ affairs, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes a poke at it. Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.
Which is maybe another reason he is the former
Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien.
I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11
Posted by Joe Morgante
From a Canadian.
Many years ago, the National Lampoon published a “White Person’s Guide to Foreigners”.
Under “Canadian”, it said “Often mistaken for a particularly boring white person.”
Posted by Pat Nolan
I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11.
Decoding, as best i can, the semi-literate syntax of that:
The whole flippin’ Middle East would be a good start as a good place to stay the hëll out of.
“if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples’ affairs, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes a poke at it.”
Like a lot of statements on this thread, this is only true up to a point.
Look, in the world we live in today, with international trade, diplomacy, communication, environment, crime, and immigration, isolationism is no longer an option, no matter how much you’d like it, and noses are going to get poked one way or the other, not only the US’s. Other countries are economically and diplomatically involved in affairs in other parts of the world, and other countries are having problems as a result of friction between the west and Islamic radicalism.
Secondly, you can’t undue the past. The US got involved in world affairs a long time ago, especially during the cold war. The west has been interacting with the rest of the world since evern before that. In both cases the interaction has not always been done wisely.
Thirdly, the US is not the cause for all the ills plaguing the Muslim world. And Radical Islamism is a reaction against problems in the Islamic world.
So, whather you like it or not the xcollective noses of the US, Europe, China, india, Russia, and the Muslim World are already stick deep into each other’s business, and the only thing you can do is to try to behave as wisely as possible in this given situation. Invading Iraq, by the way, was unwise.
“Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.
The only reason it didn’t happen to Britain in its colonial days was that communications and other technologies didn’t exist to allow the third world countries to organize the means to strike back.”
1) Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. Not a distant country. To expect Russia not to be involved in it’s affairs will be like saying the US shouldn’t be involved in the affairs of Mexico (if not Texas).
2) The British Empire fought its share of uprisings in the Third World. The only difference is that no fighting in these wars occured in Britain itself (except with relation to Ireland). In 9/11 it was possible for a foreign group waging a war on the US to make an attack in the US itself, against American civilians. But this is not exactly a common occurance. I believe Canada almost had an attack. Meanwhile in Europe and Australia there seem to be more problems as a result of interaction with Muslim immigrants.
Lastly, the Canadian prime minister was correct if he was trying to say that the US should act more wisely with its interaction with the rest of the world. But it seems to be tasteless to say something like that shortly after the attack.
Posted by mike weber at April 21, 2007 07:06 PM
Posted by Joe Morgante
From a Canadian.
Many years ago, the National Lampoon published a “White Person’s Guide to Foreigners”.
Under “Canadian”, it said “Often mistaken for a particularly boring white person.”
Posted by Pat Nolan
I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11.
Decoding, as best i can, the semi-literate syntax of that:
The whole flippin’ Middle East would be a good start as a good place to stay the hëll out of.
You’s still not answered question though jus
attacked mines grammer.
I’ll give you semi-literate….
> I would like to know which affairs we should have stayed out of to call for a spineless attack such as 9/11
Oh, I don’t know. Ask the relatives of all the Brasilians who disappeared after the CIA-backed military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Brasil in the 70s. A good starting point. A long time ago you say? True. But some people have long memories. Can we blame them?
No, no, no, no. You guys have it all wrong.
Why the Islamic world hates the U.S.:
*We’ve lured away their best and brightest taxi drivers.
*The dirty little secret behind “The Beverly Hillbillies:” Jed Clampett actually siphoned all of that crude from Saudi Arabian oil fields.
*A cultural misunderstanding triggered by Camel cigarettes: “smoking camels” is both a sexual reference and a grave insult in the Middle East.
*Hard-working opium farmers in Afghanistan simply cannot compete with low-cost bathtub crystal meth operations in the U.S.
*The CIA tricked Saddam Hussein into using a deoderant strong enough for a man… but made for a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Bill Mulligan. Enough said.
Posted by: The StarWolf at April 21, 2007 09:22 PM:
“> I would like to know which affairs we should have stayed out of to call for a spineless attack such as 9/11
Oh, I don’t know. Ask the relatives of all the Brasilians who disappeared after the CIA-backed military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Brasil in the 70s. A good starting point. A long time ago you say? True. But some people have long memories. Can we blame them?”
Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers. US has done many regretable things over the years, although they are not unique in that sense. But to boil down 9/11 to Ametica sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong is a mark of one dimensional thinking exactly at a time when what we need is multi-dimensional thinking.
*The CIA tricked Saddam Hussein into using a deoderant strong enough for a man… but made for a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Bill Mulligan. Enough said.
Nice, very nice. Nobody should tinker with this
list. Its priceless
Yeah, well….when I find a clever comeback somewhere on the web you’re gonna be in big trouble.
Pat, I’m not sure if there’s a particular reason why you keyed in on the last bullet. But I want it on record that I like Bill Mulligan, respect him, and am his friend. That’s the only reason I felt comfortable poking fun at him like that.
If you have some other agenda, please don’t use my words to advance it. Thanks.
Posted by Bill Myers at April 21, 2007 09:57 PM
Pat, I’m not sure if there’s a particular reason why you keyed in on the last bullet. But I want it on record that I like Bill Mulligan, respect him, and am his friend. That’s the only reason I felt comfortable poking fun at him like that.
If you have some other agenda, please don’t use my words to advance it. Thanks.
um.. No I just seemed to like that last
deoderant bit. Bill Mulligan got added
in the copy/paste by mistake. I dont know
Bill. Wow even when you completely agree you
cant win. No agenda. Nothing sneaky.
Pat… please note the words “I don’t know” and “if” in my prior post. I didn’t assume you had a hidden agenda… but given all of the šhìŧ that goes on in blogs, can you blame me for at least entertaining the possibility that you had one?
I am happy to take you at your word that you meant your response to be complimentary, and I thank you for the compliment.
I am happy to take you at your word that you meant your response to be complimentary, and I thank you for the compliment.
Your welcome and point taken about the šhìŧ
that goes on in blogs.
A pox on both of you. A pox, I say!
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.
It’s not a part of their culture. Doesn’t mean there isn’t smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well …
Micha: “Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.”
Different religious beliefs? Brazil has had a large Catholic population for generations now. Extreme Catholicism may occasional result in a lone nut job going after abortion clinics, but it doesn’t really seem to grow the same kind of suicidal fanatics as extreme Islamic Fundamentalism does.
Not that the Catholic Church hasn’t had it’s less then stellar moments in history……
I have a thought. Maybe even a couple of thoughts.
I’m throwing them out here, maybe only half baked, maybe badly expressed, but not deliberately intending to offend anyone.
I think we all have an inate tendency to expect other people to react to events the way we think/hope/suspect we would in their place.
That’s natural, we usually start to work on things within the boundaries of our own cultural expectations, within the familiar.
So it surprises us when ‘the other fella’ does something we’d never think of doing…
Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a ‘spineless attack’. The people responsible – I’m assuming – felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever. (What were they ‘meant’ to do? Formally declare war and launch a gun boat invasion of the continental US, because that would have been the correct and ‘fair fight’ way to proceed?).
Is there a simile here with what just happened in Virginia?
That people can feel – rightly or wrongly – so backed into a corner that only suicidal acts of evil and insane violence can express what they feel?
Cheers.
“Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.
It’s not a part of their culture. Doesn’t mean there isn’t smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well …”
Suicide bombings is not part of Muslim culture either. It is something that developed in Muslim culture and out of Muslim culture recently.
My point remains the same. Yes there is resentment toward the US in many places, but 9/11 is a more complex event than ‘the US stuck its nose wher it doesn’t belong.’ Among other things it is also connected to complex processes happening in the Muslim world right now.
“Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a ‘spineless attack’. The people responsible – I’m assuming – felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever.”
I think we can all agree that freedom of expression does not include the right to express your anger and frustration by killing people.
“(What were they ‘meant’ to do? Formally declare war and launch a gun boat invasion of the continental US, because that would have been the correct and ‘fair fight’ way to proceed?).”
I don’t have much sympathy to terrorism as a miilitary tactic in general or this kind in particular. You attack in order to conquer land, disable an army, set rules of engagement. If someone attacks in order to vent frustration it indicates more there own personal or collective psychological problems.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM
I think we all have an inate tendency to expect other people to react to events the way we think/hope/suspect we would in their place.
That’s natural, we usually start to work on things within the boundaries of our own cultural expectations, within the familiar.
That’s a very important point. In fact, it’s the root of all of the U.S. failures in Iraq: we didn’t take the time to understand their culture, their history, and their politics, and therefore all of our suppositions about how they’d react to us toppling Saddam’s regime were wildly incorrect.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM
Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a ‘spineless attack’. The people responsible – I’m assuming – felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever.
I’m taking your comments in the spirit in which they were offered — sharing thoughts to spark a discussion. Given our history of rubbing each other the wrong way, I think it behooves me to make clear that I am offering my response in exactly that same spirit, and hope you will take it that way.
I think you are probably dead on about what drove the attackers who perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11. At the same time, I believe we must draw a line between understanding… and condoning.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM
Is there a simile here with what just happened in Virginia?
Actually… I think an analogy might be valid, although it would be particularly dámņìņg of the terrorists.
Cho Seung-Hui apparently believed he was making a noble sacrifice similar to the one made by Jesus Christ. In reality he perpetrated an obscene act of unimaginable violence against innocent people.
The attackers who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 similarly believed they were making a noble sacrifice when in fact they were doing nothing of the sort.
Cho Seung-Hui could have sought help for the clinical depression from which he was said to suffer (and having suffered from and sought treatment for clinical depression myself, I know whereof I speak). The terrorist group known as Al Qaeda could have turned to non-violent means, like those successfully used by Mohandas Gandhi to throw off the yoke of British oppression in India. Or at the very least could have limited their terrorist attacks to U.S. military targets in Saudi Arabia.
My point? There are always alternatives. And one must be cautious of crossing the line between understanding what motivates acts of evil and condoning them.
By the way… had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we’d likely not have invaded Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is not the only nation that needs to brush up on other cultures.
Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.
It’s not a part of their culture. Doesn’t mean there isn’t smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well …”
There is a lot of resentment against the US here, but there is also a lot of admiration. You can say Brazilians have a love-hate thing for Americans. We love to say how evil and Imperialist Americans are, while we eagerly consume American movies, TV, comic books, food, clothes, culture, and everything we can get a hold of…
I suppose it’s like this in many other places, but Brazil must hold some world record, I don’t think even 10% of the movies released here are Brazilian-made, and this because Brazilian cinema is having a renaissance of sorts, when I was younger, it must have been 5% or less.
There were some fanatical left-wing terrorist organizations here in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were very small, they died out fast, and they never had much popular support. For good and for ill, it’s just not in our culture to take things so seriously as to take our own lifes for a cause.
I can imagine the average Brazilian persuading a would-be terrorist to just go drink a beer and relax in a beautiful beach somewhere and forget about killing.
A monkey wrench: The identities of the culprits of 9/11 have only–so far–been alleged.
The ethnicity of the hijackers is based on the alleged content of one cell phone call. It is not proven that they were muslims or Al Qaida. For all we know, they were modern Liberty Boys in Muslim drag.
There is a mountain of evidence unexplained by the 9/11 Commission Report that points to alternative explanations. (Check out the documentary “In Plane Sight” for starters.)
My point is: Maybe “they” hate us because they believe they are wrongly accused. If 9/11 is the cause of their misery, they probably would want a better factual basis than the mere assertions of a US administration that has behaved almost pathological in its deceits. (Many of Bush’s lies have been exposed. So why would they believe ANYTHING “America” has to say about anything?)
Why does the American point of view seem to always begin with the notion that no one else knows anything except what the U.S. tells them?
Posted by dan at April 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Why does the American point of view seem to always begin with the notion that no one else knows anything except what the U.S. tells them?
—–
This goes right back to my first post, the belief in Manifest Destiny. We are the best and nobody else knows anything. We rule the world.
Not true, of course, but a large precentage of Americans believe it.
(Check out the documentary “In Plane Sight” for starters.)
Please, just tell us all that you are joking with that line. No, really. The only unanswered question about this “documentary” is whether or not the writer and director are going to refund the money of all the people who bought the thing. They’ve had so much of their film debunked so bad that it isn’t even funny anymore. I mean, you can only get away with being forced to admit that yet another “fact” in your film is a “mistake” before you’re a complete joke. They hit that point ten or twenty “mistakes” ago.
Either that or admit that you’re actually Rosie O’Donnell posting under a fake name while tryig to convince others that there are actually people out there who do believe her wild 9/11 ravings.
Dan: A monkey wrench: The identities of the culprits of 9/11 have only–so far–been alleged.
Luigi Novi: No, they’ve been established. There is videotape evidence showing them at the airport boarding the planes, their movements prior to that day have been tracked, and witnesses and acquaitances have corroborated their actions. Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attacks, which you can see at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms
Dan: they probably would want a better factual basis than the mere assertions of a US administration that has behaved almost pathological in its deceits. (Many of Bush’s lies have been exposed. So why would they believe ANYTHING “America” has to say about anything?)
Luigi Novi: So because Bush lied about some things means that therefore, he has lied about everything, including Al Quaeda being responsible for 9/11? And when Clinton says he did everything he could to go after bin Laden, is he lying because, after all, he lied about Monica Lewinsky?
Sorry, Dan, but you’re gonna have to trim the logical fallacy fat from your arguments before you get to any empirical meat.
Either that or admit that you’re actually Rosie O’Donnell posting under a fake name while tryig to convince others that there are actually people out there who do believe her wild 9/11 ravings.
I remember reading about a poll late last years that says 60% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 beforehand. So, yes, a lot of Americans think there is far more about it than the official version (though I suppose only the real paranoid fringe believes the US or Israel staged the attacks).
Of course, the poll doesn’t say a lot about 9/11 by itself, but rather about how little credibility Bush and co. currently have.
I remember reading about a poll late last years that says 60% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 beforehand. So, yes, a lot of Americans think there is far more about it than the official version…
Yeah, but 9/11 In Plane Sight goes well beyond that. The “documentary” presents a number of out of context interview snippets and laughably bad video footage to try and convince the extremely gullible that not only did Bush know about 9/11, but we planned it and did it to ourselves, the news reports post 9/11 lied to us and yada, yada, yada.
I saw it one time and laughed myself silly when not wanting to throw something at the TV. Some of the best bits involved stuff like pulling quotes out of context to “prove” that a missile was launched at the Pentagon. They play an out of context quote with someone saying that it looked like a big missile with wings hit the building. Thing is, the full statement was from someone talking about the plane hitting the building and then describing how the how the plane looked when it hit the building.
There was one bit that was laugh out loud funny. There is an extremely slim chance that it’s legitimate video footage, but the odds of it being a real video with a bad overdub is much more likely. The video shows the impact of the second plane into the towers. Lots of sound, lots of panic and lots of screaming. Then, not sounding quite like it belongs on the footage, a screaming voice yells out that the plain that just hit, and I mean just hit, the towers isn’t an American Airlines’ plane.
Uhm, ok. That’s certainly the first thing that would come to my mind during an event like 9/11. Why, I’m sure that just about every Average Joe out there would have stopped and screamed that the second plane crashing into the towers wasn’t an American Airlines’ plane.
Plus, like I said before, the guys behind this have been spanked on so many interviews over the “facts” in their piece of crap. Anybody that’s buying the garbage that they’re selling in an age where you can fact check so much stuff so easily is someone wanting to believe the bizarrely stupid over the truth.
Posted by: pat nolan at April 19, 2007 09:24 PM:
“Exactly… and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up.”
And with hindsight we now know that Saddam had (rather to our surprise) complied with them, and presented evidence to the UN demonstating that he had complied with them that was disbeleived by the US. Not that any compliance would have convinced Dubya. PNAC wanted to show what it could do, and God help us, now we know.
Not that any compliance would have convinced Dubya. PNAC wanted to show what it could do, and God help us, now we know.
Hëll, the White House was making it clear that compliance meant nothing before we even went in to Iraq.
Bushes Pre-War (by days) speach:
George W. Bush, March 17:
“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”
March 18, New York Times:
“Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out” by Michael Gordon.
“Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today.”
Bush wanted to go into Iraq and was going in no matter what.
Posted by Bill Myers at April 22, 2007 09:09 AM
My point? There are always alternatives. And one must be cautious of crossing the line between understanding what motivates acts of evil and condoning them.
By the way… had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we’d likely not have invaded Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is not the only nation that needs to brush up on other cultures.
Definitely agree on para one. Doesn’t matter how cute a puppy it was, if the dog has rabies you put it down.
Para two… Not so sure. I think you (we) would not have invaded so fast and with so much public support, but the Iraq invasion was always on the cards. The concensus certainly seems to be that any Iraq / Al Qaeda links are extremely dubyous…
It’s tempting again to equate the actions of nations to the actions of individuals. Your man George is convinced that Saddam is beating his kids and stockpiling Kalashnikovs, he goes to the cops, who say ‘sorry, not enough evidence’ so George goes vigilante, kicks in the guys door, shoots his the neighbour and his brothers and then finds no guns… Meanwhile, our man Tony, instead of saying ‘Whoa, hang on a sec, pal’ is right in there with him…
Couple of random numbers to toss in; ignoring for a second the practicalities.
Should there be the equivalent of a World Police Force, backed by a multi-national standing army, that can intervene in the affairs of other nations?
Or should there be – in effect – a Prime Directive that no nation can ever interfere in the affairs of another country?
Cheers.
Posted by: Micha at April 22, 2007 08:03 AM
I don’t have much sympathy to terrorism as a miilitary tactic in general or this kind in particular. You attack in order to conquer land, disable an army, set rules of engagement. If someone attacks in order to vent frustration it indicates more there own personal or collective psychological problems.
Hmmm.. I’d tend to class terrorism as more of a political tactic than a military one. The whole point is that in a traditional military conflict the US would be extremely hard to defeat (Note; that’s ‘defeat’, not ‘destroy’)
By inspiring terror in the general populace though, you can – arguably, theoretically – exert pressure to make a nation change its policies and its behaviour.
Cheers.
“Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 23, 2007 03:12 PM
Posted by: Micha at April 22, 2007 08:03 AM
“Hmmm.. I’d tend to class terrorism as more of a political tactic than a military one.”
That’s a little like describing the mafia as a family business.
Most military onflicts,, which are not intended to achieve the complete surrender or conquest of the opponent are intended to acheive political goals like getting a country to change its policies or its behavior.
I personaly don’t feel that terrorism as used by Al-Quaida is a very good method to achieve these goals, but that’s just me.
“The whole point is that in a traditional military conflict the US would be extremely hard to defeat (Note; that’s ‘defeat’, not ‘destroy’)”
I feel really bad for them, it’s so unfair.
“By inspiring terror in the general populace though, you can – arguably, theoretically – exert pressure to make a nation change its policies and its behaviour.”
So does carpet bombing. I don’s support that either.
“Para two… Not so sure. I think you (we) would not have invaded so fast and with so much public support, but the Iraq invasion was always on the cards. The concensus certainly seems to be that any Iraq / Al Qaeda links are extremely dubyous…”
I don’t think Bill meant that 9/11 caused Ira because Iraq was connected to Al-Quaida, but rather that it made it possible for Bush to get the American people to support such an extensive plan. Prior to 9/11 I doubt if he could have gotten support for an invasion if Afghanistan.
“Should there be the equivalent of a World Police Force.”
Such a force will usually be controled by the cynical interests of different, often competeing, countries, or by emotion. The world is far from ready for a unified force.
You also have to ask yourself by what laws will such a police force work? Inside democratic states the police upholds the laws legislated by elected representatives. Where does the international law derive its authority?
“backed by a multi-national standing army, that can intervene in the affairs of other nations?”
Usually other nations would not be willing to take real risks to the lives of their soldiers in order to solve the affairs of other nations. When they are tempted to do it, they often do a bad job and/or regret it very quickly.
“Or should there be – in effect – a Prime Directive that no nation can ever interfere in the affairs of another country?”
I’ve read a liberterian that suggested that this would be more moral. But in the real world countries will be motivated to interfere in the affairs of other countries for their own interest or because of emotional reasons, and so long as the risk is not too great.
Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.
All it would take is some reasonably charismatic Roman Catholic leader “re-imagining” the New Testament to read there is some great reward for waging Holy War against the “heretics”.
(All together now)
“The Inquisition what a show!!”
History’s recipe for jihads, crusades, and holocausts:
Take one part downtrodden population, add a dash of deep, probably misplaced, cultural resentment, add one charismatic speaker with easy answers (sanity not required). Mix well. Cook to boiling.
Micha:
“So does carpet bombing. I don’t support that either.”
There’s – hopefully – a difference between understanding something as a concept and supporting it.
For me, if anyone has adopted terrorism as a means of advancing their objectives they should be prevented from doing so, as forcefully as is necessary, up to and including lethal intervention.
I do disagree with your interpretations of ‘military tactics’ and ‘political tactics’ within the context of our conversation, but there’s no great harm in our disagreeing.
Cheers.
Peter J. Poole: Micha is correct that I do not believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, nor between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I merely believe that the fear and anger fostered by 9/11 gave Bush the pretext he needed to invade Iraq. Had Al Qaeda not perpetrated 9/11, I don’t think Bush could’ve gotten the support he needed for going to war against Iraq.
A “Prime Directive” sounds wonderful but is, I believe, impractical. It’s a small, small world and we are growing increasingly interdependent. I do, however, wish that the U.S. would exercise more care and intervene in other nations’ affairs when it is justified. Invading Afghanistan, for example, was justified. Invading Iraq was not.
Micha: I know that terrorism is a sensitive issue for Israelis, who live with it on a daily basis, but there are times when terrorism is justified. Some African nations owe their independence to terrorism. When you are being occupied by an oppressive and militarily superior force, and all other alternatives have failed or are denied to you, I believe it is justifiable to use terrorist tactics against the occupiers on your home soil.
To be clear, I do not believe the Israeli-Palestinian situation is similar to that of African nations that had been colonized. Europeans in Africa had a homeland to which they could retreat. Israel is the Jewish homeland. I do not want my words to be interpreted as a defense of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.