Re: Faurenheit & Faurenhype 9/11
Woodrat, are we still in a state of war with Germany, Japan, or Korea? We still have troops there. <br /><br />you compare our korean outpost to the current state of affairs in iraq? I thought you were an awful lot smarter than that. War isn't "over" just cuz W says so. All I have to do is look at the news from ANY source and it is plain to see that the place is an active, hot battleground. Semantics and legalese have no bearing on the reality on the ground. its still a war.<br /><br />Does a state of War currently exist between the United States and Iraq? <br /><br />depends of what you mean by iraq. If you mean the iraqi people, yes obviously we and many of them are still at war. If you mean the puppet interim "government", well of course not. That is just another branch of our own government.<br /><br />Was the ruling government expelled and replaced? <br /><br />expelled, yes, replaced, no, not yet.<br /><br />Does the country of Iraq have an army? <br /><br />do they need one to keep inflicitng daily casualties on US soldiers?<br /><br />Could you help me with the definition of war? I don't see a war here. Who are we fighting? Terrorists, insurgents, and militia's. Not a country, not an army. And we are doing it in conjunction with the sovergn authorities of Iraq. Who can we sue for peace to? Perhaps France or Kofi. Has the new government even asked us to leave? This is now a peacekeeping mission. <br /><br />as a peacekeeping mission I'd say its a dismal failure. looks like war to me, and I'll bet almost any soldier on the ground there would find your comments a little baffling. your commander in chief can say whatever he wants, but even his %52 "mandate" doesn't give him the power to change reality with just his words. We are at war over there, and will be at war for the forseeable future, because as far as the neocon agenda goes, iraq is just the beginning.<br /><br />your thread here about the definition of war seem uncharacteristically disingenuous for you, pointer. This is the kind of legalistic *****footing and bull that clinton used to use all the time. W can call it whatever he wants, but we all know its still a war. The idea that we can't be at war unless its with another nation-state seems to fly in the face of the whole republican presentation of this mess. They are the ones saying its a war against terrorism, and now you say since its just terrorists we're fighting, its not a war.<br /><br />as to michael moore, who cares? I didn't think that movie was all that great. he does a great job of editing and selecting to illuminate the worst sides of people, and he did a competent job of that on W, but really missed a lot of key points and material, and didn't really present that cohesive of a thesis. As to whether its OK for him to lie becuase bush does, heck, a lot of bush supporters figure its OK for W to lie just because. No rationale given. Everyone at that level is lying. After 911, the generals and what not came on TV, looked right into the camera, and basicaly said, "hey, don't expect any of US to tell you the truth about anything from now on. Its too dangerous and you just don't need to know." THAT is a lot more disturbing to me than whether michael moore selectively edits his movies to present his bias. <br /><br />BTW, the Revolutionary War that Britain fought with us did not include two nations with proper unifomed armies. We were the insurgents and the militia then. Did that make it not a war? What about the civil war? The south wasn't a separate nation yet. Does that mean it wasn't a war?
<br /><br /><br />