Vince said:
No, try reading it again. I'm comparing the [Persian Gulf War], the 12 year pause, and the [Iraqi War] to the position of many that [World War 1] and [World War 2] are infact one conflict seperated by a Clausewitzian pause instigated by politic.
Nowhere am I equating Nazi Germany with Iraq in any way, shape, or form. So yes, I called you stupid, perhaps it wasn't premature.
And the second point I'm not even going to get into...
Your position is only sustainable when you're in a position of ignorance/lack of data. The United States doesn't actively hunt and kill civilians; Terrorists, like al-Qaeda, do. The United States doesn't have doctrine advocating their death, al-Qaeda does.
This is unambiguious in serious discussion, for example, the Roman Catholic Church makes just such a distinction over intent in allowing for conflict under the principles Of Jus In Bello.
Just to be clear, that second quote was not from me.
I'll make this as simple as possible, since I think you're obfuscating.
The whole of my argument is
Me = angry
Reason? Terrorism.
Additional anger: directed at my own gov't's lack of action post 9/11
exacerbated by: claiming to be fighting terrorism in war I don't agree with. Worse, using that as a justification for the war in the first place.
[I haven't gotten into my reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, or why I called it stupid. It's actually a smart war for one of the reasons you posit-- altering the political landscape of the region-- I just don't agree idealogically with that reason to go to war. That's more interesting to debate than whether the 9/11 Commission's tentative link between Iraq and bin Laden merits a war, since that would be a justifaction at best, and not the actual reason to be there.
My biggest problem with you analysis is that you fall into the same trap most antiwar people do, arguing the ideology rather than the more likely reasons nations war. Your use of "fanatical" to describe the Middle East shows that. Nations go to war for their interests. We are in Iraq bacuase it is in our interests to have another country politically and ecomonically friendly to us there, and there are military and economic benefits to the action. Period. I disagree with the war not because of a value judgment so much as becuase in the bigger picture, I believe the political costs to the US are greater than the gains, and the I believe the economic benefits are going to be such that they will not have substantial benefits to the general polulace of the US or Iraq, but rather to smaller private interests. That last statement is one I would not go to bat over, as it is not well-informed, although it does match our country's record of intervention in other parts of the world. ]
But all that is beside the fact. I am pissed becuase we're not doing what we should be to deal with Al Queda, apparently, while our government is saying that we are, by being in Iraq. Like any number of people, I don't like being lied to.
I take it be "not dealing with the second point" that you disagree, but I remain unconvinved that our actions in Iraq have done anything to reduce terrorism or that we were really there for that reason in the first place.