Thread: Obama is president, but the war in Iraq continues.

What exactly qualifies as the end of the war? I have a feeling the US will have a permanent base in Iraq forever...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

What exactly qualifies as the end of the war? I have a feeling the US will have a permanent base in Iraq forever...

Which war? The war in Iraq, or the "War on Terror?"

The War in Iraq could go on for years, but if it's a war that the Iraqi people are able (and apparently willing) to be the driving force of, then I say let them - even if we have a few troops there in supporting roles, for however long. If it can remain their war, instead of ours, I would say that that's enough.

The 'War on Terror,' though, has no end. Even putting a name on it was a complete farce.

The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever. I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever. I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."

I believe that's how it's always been presented. Maybe not so literally, but it's how it's always been 'talked up.' How do you interpret it?

I interpret it as a denunciation of all tangible terrorist organizations in the Middle East first and foremost, and then prominent terrorist organizations outside the Middle East second. I'm suprised so many people take the title literally, as if we are trying to delete the word from the dictionary. It's the same idea as a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs." It's a political ploy meant to draw attention to a certain cause, not a literal war on an intangible concept.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I interpret it as a denunciation of all tangible terrorist organizations in the Middle East first and foremost, and then prominent terrorist organizations outside the Middle East second. I'm suprised so many people take the title literally, as if we are trying to delete the word from the dictionary. It's the same idea as a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs." It's a political ploy meant to draw attention to a certain cause, not a literal war on an intangible concept.

My problem with it - much like the term "War on Drugs" - is that it's a bit of a misnomer. It denotes having an unequivocal, no-tolerance policy toward the cause. When you call something a "War on Terror," you are drumming up a War against Terrorism. The fact of the matter is that there are already a lot of people out there who equate Islam with "Terrorism," as if the two words are interchangeable. Above that, tacking the words "War on Terror" onto a campaign, to help garner support for an operation that is essentially localized to one area (of American Interest, 'coincidentally') is arguably propaganda. The 'War on Terror' has been billed as a global campaign against 'terrorists' (on far more than one occasion), which is rhetoric that has quelled quite a bit, the further we got into this quagmire in Iraq. It sends a message to the world that we are stead-fast in a cause that is for the good of humanity in general, not localized to one economically important area. That is why people from so many other different regions are left wondering "what about us?"

As I said, it's much like the 'War on Drugs'; a political ploy (as you said), which paints the picture that they are cracking down on the drug dealers of America for a humanistic purpose, instead of a monetary one - only to end up being a selective campaign against high-end (high-monetary-return) traffickers, while not only granting pardon, but protection to relatively smaller operations, in exchange for information.

When I call it a farce, I don't mean to say it doesn't serve a purpose. I mean to say that it's billed as something it's not, in an effort to garner support.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think this applies to both parties. Look at everything Obama promised and what he has done. He promised to close Gitmo. He signed a bullshit executive order that everyone thought closed it, but turned out was just an informal promise to examine the possibility of closing it after a year. Now, after a year it is still open with no sign that it will ever be closed. Obama has done the exact opposite of almost all of his campaign platform points.

I could be mistaken but didn't he try to do something about those campaign platform points? The current Republican party has been making an effort to stonewall, at times even undermine, the current administration has it not? Like with that healthcare bill for example, they wanted to start all over again and complained that it was too long (since when is being thorough a bad thing?).

Don't bite me, I said I could be mistaken. D:
-----
The USA will not pull out completely. Obama pulled combat troops but that's as far as they'll go, I can't imagine them doing any more any time soon. They'll just set up a handful of bases for "strategic purposes" and then remain in the area like they always do.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My problem with it - much like the term "War on Drugs" - is that it's a bit of a misnomer. It denotes having an unequivocal, no-tolerance policy toward the cause. When you call something a "War on Terror," you are drumming up a War against Terrorism. The fact of the matter is that there are already a lot of people out there who equate Islam with "Terrorism," as if the two words are interchangeable. Above that, tacking the words "War on Terror" onto a campaign, to help garner support for an operation that is essentially localized to one area (of American Interest, 'coincidentally') is arguably propaganda. The 'War on Terror' has been billed as a global campaign against 'terrorists' (on far more than one occasion), which is rhetoric that has quelled quite a bit, the further we got into this quagmire in Iraq. It sends a message to the world that we are stead-fast in a cause that is for the good of humanity in general, not localized to one economically important area. That is why people from so many other different regions are left wondering "what about us?"

As I said, it's much like the 'War on Drugs'; a political ploy (as you said), which paints the picture that they are cracking down on the drug dealers of America for a humanistic purpose, instead of a monetary one - only to end up being a selective campaign against high-end (high-monetary-return) traffickers, while not only granting pardon, but protection to relatively smaller operations, in exchange for information.

When I call it a farce, I don't mean to say it doesn't serve a purpose. I mean to say that it's billed as something it's not, in an effort to garner support.

I still don't get what the big deal is. The name is a non-issue to me. They can call the war on terror whatever they want as long as they are working against terrorism. You say your problem is that it "denotes having a no tolerance policy towards terrorism." Why do you have a problem with that? People equate terrorism to Islam because there are not many other other notable terrorist organizations that are not Islamic. Humans have a natural tendency to associate things when they see them together a lot. That doesn't mean it's ok to assume this is actually a war on Islam (if that's what you are saying, I don't really know what point you are trying to make.)

There are political games being played constantly with any sort of war, that should be taken as a given. I don't think it's fair, however, to expect America to fight terrorism all over the world. It is clearly most prevalent in Middle Eastern cultures and our military is spread thin enough as it is. "What about us?" is not a reasonable complaint in my opinion. The word propaganda has had such a negative stigma attached to it because of all the blatantly racist and stereotypical posters that were created during WWII, but propaganda is not an inherently negative thing. It's public relations. Public relations used to be known as propaganda until WWII when the field had to distance itself from the negative connotations that go along with that word. It's simply spreading information about your cause to make people more aware. It can put a more positive spin on something to help garner support, but it would be considered highly unethical to actually lie about the facts (not to mention an incredibly stupid PR move.) It might support an honorable cause or it might not. I suppose it would be up to the individual to judge whether or not it is a cause worthy of their support. If a simple name change is all it takes to change their opinion, then it's not likely that they are a person who has any sort of power.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The "war on terror" is only a farce if you think it means eradicating the world of terrorism completely, forever. I don't think that was ever the goal of the "war on terror."

'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.'
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

Yea looks like you support the war under misconstrued reasons.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

'Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.'
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

Yea looks like you support the war under misconstrued reasons.

Thank you. I was beginning to figure I was the only person who actually knew what the "War On Terror" actually meant.
(And, frankly, I just didn't feel like getting caught up in a battle over semantics.)

What don't I understand?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What don't I understand?

I think it's just a matter of interpretation. The problem (or what I see as the problem) is that you are skewing - perhaps unintentionally - what was said, to make the declaration of the War on Terror something that it wasn't advertised as. You can say "well this is what he meant," but the way it was actually advertised was as something different.

In the end, you could be right - and I wouldn't blame you for making that speculation - but the fact of the matter is that the WoT was billed as a global campaign to aggressively pursue terrorists "around the world." Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan, but (in the former President's own words:

Originally Posted by Dubya

This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

....Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

....We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

....Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

....As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

The above clearly outlines the way that the WoT has always been advertised. You can twist the words to say "Oh, well it's not a global War on Terror. He just meant the Middle East" but those are your words, not the President's.

Ok, so clearly we just just interpret it differently. I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics, which means I am not likely to quote speeches and take claims and promises at face value. So I see a speech by President Bush as much more of an effort gain support rather than a precise declaration of our intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth. Even if it was such a declaration, and there was some plan written up to mirror his words, I would argue that you can only fight one battle at a time. Terrorism isn't as rampant anywhere else in the world as it is in the Middle East. It would make more sense to focus completely on the Middle East.

A plan to fight all terrorist groups around the world simultaneously is unrealistic, and I think most of our military's leaders knew that. I think maybe even President Bush knew that.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Ok, so clearly we just just interpret it differently. I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics, which means I am not likely to quote speeches and take claims and promises at face value. So I see a speech by President Bush as much more of an effort gain support rather than a precise declaration of our intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth. Even if it was such a declaration, and there was some plan written up to mirror his words, I would argue that you can only fight one battle at a time. Terrorism isn't as rampant anywhere else in the world as it is in the Middle East. It would make more sense to focus completely on the Middle East.

A plan to fight all terrorist groups around the world simultaneously is unrealistic, and I think most of our military's leaders knew that. I think maybe even President Bush knew that.

So what he said and what he meant are two different things? Is this a game of riddles? And saying "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" is not declaring the United States' "intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth?" I have to ask, how high is your reading comprehension?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So what he said and what he meant are two different things? Is this a game of riddles? And saying "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" is not declaring the United States' "intent to systematically wipe terrorism from the face of the Earth?" I have to ask, how high is your reading comprehension?

In regards to your first question, I have to ask. How accurate is your understanding of typical politics? Specifically, when precisely are what our elected political leaders say and what they mean ever the same?

Bush was very plainly engaging in typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation. It was political showmanship and nothing more.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

In regards to your first question, I have to ask. How accurate is your understanding of typical politics? Specifically, when precisely are what our elected political leaders say and what they mean ever the same?

Bush was very plainly engaging in typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation. It was political showmanship and nothing more.

I understand the difference between theory and practice but I challenge you to show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency. If it was 'political showmanship' like you said it was then it would follow that we did not engage in war.

He continued to support the Saudi Arabian royalty while they were openly allowing wealthy citizens to openly fund terrorist groups?

Here's an article from 2008 I dug up on the first page of a google search: Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorism - Saudis faulted for funding terror - Los Angeles Times.

EDIT: And while it's not directly related to terrorism, might I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with nothing vaguely approaching democracy which Bush claimed to be attempting to spread. I say not directly related but you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions. So there is some relation there

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

He continued to support the Saudi Arabian royalty while they were openly allowing wealthy citizens to openly fund terrorist groups?

Here's an article from 2008 I dug up on the first page of a google search: Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorism - Saudis faulted for funding terror - Los Angeles Times.

EDIT: And while it's not directly related to terrorism, might I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with nothing vaguely approaching democracy which Bush claimed to be attempting to spread. I say not directly related but you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions. So there is some relation there

Firstly, this is a 'war on terror,' not a 'war on dictatorships.' Secondly, how are you defining 'terrorism?' Is it the systematic use of violence as a means of coerce? If you are then the US has been committing terrorism in its foreign relations since the 1890's, perhaps even earlier. Since the US is a democratic country then this would contradict your statement. Third, the United States was/is already engage in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while suffering through a recession therefore where would the logic be in attacking the prime US supplier of oil? Just because the US doesn't attack them first doesn't mean they don't matter. If anything they would snuff out the weaker countries first in order to prevent them from allying with the stronger force.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Firstly, this is a 'war on terror,' not a 'war on dictatorships.'

Right which is why I primarily cited a source indicated that we were allied with a government that is essentially directly funding terrorism in direct contradiction to you assertion that Bush's claim that "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." should be taken at face value and in response to your request to "show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency."

Secondly, how are you defining 'terrorism?' Is it the systematic use of violence as a means of coerce?

I would say that it's the use or support of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of its government (edit: or the practice of genocide). The way you define it, all war is terrorism. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I prefer to restrict the definition to keep it meaningful. Nuking Hiroshima and flying planes into the World Trade Centers would qualify as terrorism. Bombing the U.S.S Cole or other attacks against military targets would not in contradiction to how our propaganda machines would like to paint it.

If you are then the US has been committing terrorism in its foreign relations since the 1890's, perhaps even earlier

We were giving smallpox infected blankets to Indians in the 1700s so yeah, I'd say earlier. Jeffery Amherst and Kit Carson were two terrorists that have a bunch of shit named after them to this day. I'm generally of the opinion that the US government is the largest terrorist organisation in existence and is essentially an illegal entity over most of the continental "united states" which is just illegally occupied Indian territory and all of my country which is illegally occupied Hawai'ian territory. I was trying to keep my points conventional but if you're willing to concede that the US government is a terrorist organisation then I might as well bring out the big guns. So by not declaring war on the US, Bush acted in direct violation of his claim.

Since the US is a democratic country then this would contradict your statement.

I suppose It would. So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.

Third, the United States was/is already engage in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while suffering through a recession therefore where would the logic be in attacking the prime US supplier of oil?

Why were we in Iraq? What did that have to do with terrorism. Was it a "war on terror" or a "war on dictatorships"? So, yes, the opportunity cost of waging a "war on (some) dictatorships" is that you can't wage a "war on terror". We could have done both with Saudi Arabia.

Just because the US doesn't attack them first doesn't mean they don't matter. If anything they would snuff out the weaker countries first in order to prevent them from allying with the stronger force.

I'm sorry. Are you honestly suggesting that you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we're going to attack Saudi Arabia?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Right which is why I primarily cited a source indicated that we were allied with a government that is essentially directly funding terrorism in direct contradiction to you assertion that Bush's claim that "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." should be taken at face value and in response to your request to "show a disconnect in what Bush said he was going to do (in terms of 'fighting terrorism') and what he did during his presidency."

Yes and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and supposedly in Iraq. Again two weak nations, one that already had sanctions against it thus showing my point about the US seeking out weak targets. So again, no disconnect in Bush's theory and practice. Just because he didn't attack the strongest nation in the region, doesn't mean there was a disconnect.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I would say that it's the use or support of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of its government (edit: or the practice of genocide). The way you define it, all war is terrorism. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I prefer to restrict the definition to keep it meaningful. Nuking Hiroshima and flying planes into the World Trade Centers would qualify as terrorism. Bombing the U.S.S Cole or other attacks against military targets would not in contradiction to how our propaganda machines would like to paint it.

So there can be no such thing as "domestic terrorism" in the sense that an individual is carrying out terror attacks against government institutions or officials?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

We were giving smallpox infected blankets to Indians in the 1700s so yeah, I'd say earlier. Jeffery Amherst and Kit Carson were two terrorists that have a bunch of shit named after them to this day. I'm generally of the opinion that the US government is the largest terrorist organisation in existence and is essentially an illegal entity over most of the continental "united states" which is just illegally occupied Indian territory and all of my country which is illegally occupied Hawai'ian territory. I was trying to keep my points conventional but if you're willing to concede that the US government is a terrorist organisation then I might as well bring out the big guns. So by not declaring war on the US, Bush acted in direct violation of his claim.

That's funny because you just claimed that democratic nations usually aren't terrorists. Is the US your exception?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I suppose It would. So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.

So everyone who supports the war and gives aid to it isn't guilty of helping to commit acts of terror?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Why were we in Iraq? What did that have to do with terrorism. Was it a "war on terror" or a "war on dictatorships"? So, yes, the opportunity cost of waging a "war on (some) dictatorships" is that you can't wage a "war on terror". We could have done both with Saudi Arabia.

As I have explain to you before, Iraq was a relativity weak country that was already under economic sanctions and military scrutiny. The thrill of an easy victory can help ignite nationalist fervor toward continued war while a protracted one only causes declining interest. Also as I said before the US is still in a recession so where is the sense in attacking the primary exporter of oil to the US as the first target? At least until economic self-sufficiency can be obtain which is, gasp, something neo-conservatives are pursing in their economic policies.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm sorry. Are you honestly suggesting that you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we're going to attack Saudi Arabia?

I don't think it is possible or even advisable but there are people in power or who are advisers to power individuals who think there is a chance. If you'd like I can name names.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and supposedly in Iraq. Again two weak nations, one that already had sanctions against it thus showing my point about the US seeking out weak targets. So again, no disconnect in Bush's theory and practice. Just because he didn't attack the strongest nation in the region, doesn't mean there was a disconnect.

Except Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after the US invaded and everybody that was vaguely paying attention knew it. So again Iraq had no relation to "terrorism" in the sense that George Bush was talking about.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So there can be no such thing as "domestic terrorism" in the sense that an individual is carrying out terror attacks against government institutions or officials?

Are they attacking civilians? If so then they're terrorists. If not then they're ill-advised revolutionaries engaging in guerrilla warfare.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's funny because you just claimed that democratic nations usually aren't terrorists. Is the US your exception?

No I never made a statement about if nations are terrorists. I said that

Originally Posted by me

you'll note that people from democratic nations don't generally engage in terrorism with a few notable exceptions.

Which I had revised to

Originally Posted by me

So I have to rephrase it as you don't see "non state actors" (a phrase which the Bush administration loves) from democratic countries committing acts of terrorism, with a few notable exceptions.

Where do you get from either of those that I'm making any judgement at all about whether nations are or are not terrorists. My feeling is compounded by the fact that I specifically called out the US government as being the largest terrorist organisation in the world. I have to ask: How's your reading comprehension?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So everyone who supports the war and gives aid to it isn't guilty of helping to commit acts of terror?

It's a tricky question. There are a lot of things that they finance that is "legitimate" war, i.e., not terrorism. And most people don't see how the government is a terrorist organisation that does things like train central american death squads to support dictatorships that are friendly to US companies. So it would come down to whether the person providing the material support knows that they're supporting terrorism or not. At any rate, I really don't see the relevancy.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

As I have explain to you before, Iraq was a relativity weak country that was already under economic sanctions and military scrutiny. The thrill of an easy victory can help ignite nationalist fervor toward continued war while a protracted one only causes declining interest.

But what does this have to do with the "war on terrorism"?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Also as I said before the US is still in a recession so where is the sense in attacking the primary exporter of oil to the US as the first target? At least until economic self-sufficiency can be obtain which is, gasp, something neo-conservatives are pursing in their economic policies.

So, it looks like a key step in the "war in terror", that is removing the state the does more to provide material and moral support to (edit: islamic, non-state-actor) terrorists than any other, is not practical. So it looks like Bushes statement was comprised of

Originally Posted by me

typical bombastic claims to reinforce the notion of the US as the "righteous" nation.

and that

Originally Posted by me

It was political showmanship and nothing more.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Except Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after the US invaded and everybody that was vaguely paying attention knew it. So again Iraq had no relation to "terrorism" in the sense that George Bush was talking about.

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Whether or not Bush believed Al Qaeda was actually in Iraq we will never know but he did say they were and that was one of the reasons the war with Iraq happened. It was only after it was discovered that Al Qaeda wasn't around is when the administration started really trumpeting the humanitarian causes.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Are they attacking civilians? If so then they're terrorists. If not then they're ill-advised revolutionaries engaging in guerrilla warfare.

A revolutionary is a terrorist.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No I never made a statement about if nations are terrorists. I said that
Which I had revised to
Where do you get from either of those that I'm making any judgement at all about whether nations are or are not terrorists. My feeling is compounded by the fact that I specifically called out the US government as being the largest terrorist organisation in the world. I have to ask: How's your reading comprehension?

To which I asked you whether you thought individuals aiding the government were not terrorists themselves. At least have the decency to group together my statements to show a line of logic.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's a tricky question. There are a lot of things that they finance that is "legitimate" war, i.e., not terrorism. And most people don't see how the government is a terrorist organisation that does things like train central american death squads to support dictatorships that are friendly to US companies. So it would come down to whether the person providing the material support knows that they're supporting terrorism or not. At any rate, I really don't see the relevancy.

Firstly, you don't see the relevancy in questioning whether individuals who aid a terrorist nation are terrorists themselves but beforehand claim that peoples from a democratic nation rarely commit terrorist acts? Second, what is a "legitimate" war?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But what does this have to do with the "war on terrorism"?

Because George Bush thought Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So, it looks like a key step in the "war in terror", that is removing the state the does more to provide material and moral support to (edit: islamic, non-state-actor) terrorists than any other, is not practical. So it looks like Bushes statement was comprised of
and that

Neo-Conservatives are not pragmatists. They are ideologues. They believe in American exceptionalism and American global hegemony and they will probably believe in such things until the crumbling of the American empire. Afterward they will give great eulogies in honor of it and claim it was the greatest force on Earth. However, do not confuse non-pragmatic people with idiocy.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Whether or not Bush believed Al Qaeda was actually in Iraq we will never know but he did say they were and that was one of the reasons the war with Iraq happened. It was only after it was discovered that Al Qaeda wasn't around is when the administration started really trumpeting the humanitarian causes.

Given the fact that they were lying every which way to get us into the war was common knowledge at the time, this is a flimsy argument for stating that, from the perspective of a global "war on terror", we should have been in Iraq. By any reasonable standard, Saudi Arabia is far more pressing.

EDIT:
This is not hindsight by the way. At the time, I knew that they were lying to get us in and so did many other people. I was frankly a little shocked when I met people that honestly believed the things that were coming out of the white house at the time.

A revolutionary is a terrorist.

By your definition of terrorism, anybody engaging in violence for anything other than enjoyment or self defense is a terrorist. This is a pretty useless definition if you ask my. But yes, by your definition, a revolutionary is a terrorist. By my definition, they are only a terrorist if they are engaging in, knowingly supporting or threatening the use of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of that population's government or if they are engaging in genocide.

To which I asked you whether you thought individuals aiding the government were not terrorists themselves. At least have the decency to group together my statements to show a line of logic.

My apologies. I was off base there and did not mean to obfuscate your reasoning. I misunderstood it. It was however entirely unreasonable to go from the statement that "non-state-actor terrorists do not come from democratic countries with a few notable exceptions" to the assumption that I was talking about nations as terrorists and somehow excluding the US.

Firstly, you don't see the relevancy in questioning whether individuals who aid a terrorist nation are terrorists themselves but beforehand claim that peoples from a democratic nation rarely commit terrorist acts? Second, what is a "legitimate" war?

I do not see the relevancy to the original point of this conversation which is if the statements made by Bush should be taken at face value or not. By my definition, a "legitimate" war is one which does not use terrorist tactics. Given that that is the way that our wars are portrayed to the general populace and given the efficacy of our propaganda machines, I would not want to call the typical US citizen a terrorist.

Neo-Conservatives are not pragmatists. They are ideologues. They believe in American exceptionalism and American global hegemony and they will probably believe in such things until the crumbling of the American empire. Afterward they will give great eulogies in honor of it and claim it was the greatest force on Earth. However, do not confuse non-pragmatic people with idiocy.

If neo-conservatives are not pragmatists, then why did they make the closer to pragmatic decision to attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia which would be much more in line with their stated goals which you seem to think that we can take at face value?

To remind you, this whole thing started because I said that their actions clearly indicate disingenuity on their part. You asked me for one example of where their actions did not match their stated goals. Out of a hat, I picked their decisions to stay cozied up to Saudi Arabia. You claim that that is not a practical example because they are our largest supplier of oil. Why didn't we start buying Iraqi oil again? Everybody and their dog knew that a secular state where women were allowed to wear mini-skirts in public was not associated with Al Qaeda. Why didn't we start buying our oil from them and take out the Saudi princes which everybody and their dog knows is allied with Al Qaeda?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Given the fact that they were lying every which way to get us into the war was common knowledge at the time, this is a flimsy argument for stating that, from the perspective of a global "war on terror", we should have been in Iraq. By any reasonable standard, Saudi Arabia is far more pressing.

EDIT:
This is not hindsight by the way. At the time, I knew that they were lying to get us in and so did many other people. I was frankly a little shocked when I met people that honestly believed the things that were coming out of the white house at the time.

Well you thinking it was a lie and it actually being a lie are two different things. Now there were intelligence agencies who were saying that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq but they could of been lying also. I will address your Saudi Arabia below

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

By your definition of terrorism, anybody engaging in violence for anything other than enjoyment or self defense is a terrorist. This is a pretty useless definition if you ask my. But yes, by your definition, a revolutionary is a terrorist. By my definition, they are only a terrorist if they are engaging in, knowingly supporting or threatening the use of violence against a civilian population to influence the policy decisions of that population's government or if they are engaging in genocide.

How is it a useless definition? Just because it applies to a multitude of people doesn't mean that it is void of explanatory value. Also why this added new tenet of genocide? Before it was only if you are targeting civilians and now it is civilians and genocide. And finally, if I were a revolutionary who was committing violence against government officials in order to bring about my perfect state, then I wouldn't be a terrorist?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I do not see the relevancy to the original point of this conversation which is if the statements made by Bush should be taken at face value or not. By my definition, a "legitimate" war is one which does not use terrorist tactics. Given that that is the way that our wars are portrayed to the general populace and given the efficacy of our propaganda machines, I would not want to call the typical US citizen a terrorist.

Well what constitutes terrorism is a central issue in discussing the 'war on terror.' Don't you agree? And if you define 'legitimate' war as one devoid of terrorist tactics, terrorist tactics being defined as the targeting of civilians in order to change a government's policies then such wars as Vietnam, the Korean war, WWII, WWI were all legitimate wars because while civilians were targeted in these wars, the goal of the aggressive nation, namely the US, was never to change the policies of the governments they were attacking but to destroy that form of government.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If neo-conservatives are not pragmatists, then why did they make the closer to pragmatic decision to attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia which would be much more in line with their stated goals which you seem to think that we can take at face value?

It wasn't a 'pragmatic' decision to attack Iraq. It was an ideological one. The United States believed that Al Qaeda resided in Iraq and such a residency would equate to a destabilizing nature in the region. This instability would infect surrounding nations thus compromising American global hegemony especially in an area that is an economic power house in the form of crude oil. Pragmatism preaches that something is only true if it can be satisfactorily applied. It was never a question of whether it would work or if it wouldn't work, it was demanded by the intellectual framework behind the Neo Conservative ideology. Think of it in this fashion. If we were to magically time travel back to the early 2000's and told the government that they would waste billions of dollars on the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, they would kill thousands of Iraqis and US service men and they would put more effort into rebuilding Iraq then we would get out of it, do you think that making such statements to Congress would of prevented them from engaging in war? A pragmatist would say that we are taken on more faults then we are shrugging off. Why take up such an increased burden?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

To remind you, this whole thing started because I said that their actions clearly indicate disingenuity on their part. You asked me for one example of where their actions did not match their stated goals. Out of a hat, I picked their decisions to stay cozied up to Saudi Arabia. You claim that that is not a practical example because they are our largest supplier of oil. Why didn't we start buying Iraqi oil again? Everybody and their dog knew that a secular state where women were allowed to wear mini-skirts in public was not associated with Al Qaeda. Why didn't we start buying our oil from them and take out the Saudi princes which everybody and their dog knows is allied with Al Qaeda?

I claimed that it was believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and since Iraq already had military and economic sanctions, had a dictator who was thought to be, both in past and present tense, destabilizing the region. I would also ask where you got your information on Saudi PRINCES supporting Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda threatens to kidnap Saudi royals: TV | Reuters
Al-Qaeda claims Saudi prince attack - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Before you were saying 'Saudi Arabia' supports Al Qaeda to which I would agree, there are people in Saudi Arabia who support Al Qaeda but now you are claiming it is the princes.