|
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 05:12 PM by sammythecat
But, speaking for myself, if I say there was a fight between two people, I'm thinking of two people in a heated argument, one pushes the other, the other pushes back, a punch is thrown, and a fight ensues. When my mother was 79 she had her shoulder broken when she was in a "conflict" with some guy stealing her purse. I'd call that an attack (invasion) rather than a fight (war).
I can't argue the point really. You are right. But I think referring to what's happening in Iraq as a war gives it a dignity that's not deserved. Like if a strong man beats the hell out of a woman, I don't think he deserves the dignity of having the incident referred to as a fight. It's an assault.
I liken our initial action in Iraq to be like that of a street bully. We walk up to a smaller kid sitting on our steps and not only demand that he leave, but humiliate him in the process. When he balks at our belligerence we say something insulting about his mother, he then does what we've been hoping he'd do all along and says "fuck you". Great, now we proceed to beat the living hell out of the guy and get to take his lunch money whenever we want. BTW, when I use the word "we" I mean the current administration, not really "us".
I don't know if I'm being very clear here, but for an example, I think there is a huge difference between the "war" we fought with Germany and the "war" we're fighting in Iraq. We eventually invaded Germany but I really don't think there was any other option. However, "we" were just dying to invade Iraq. We could hardly wait till Saddam cursed at us and then we hit him with we all we had.
Something else bothers me with calling this a war is that Lincoln was a "war president" (an odd term I think), and Roosevelt was a war president, and this total prick that we have in the White House likes to refer to himself as a "war president" as often as he possibly can. He really seems to get off on that. If he could get away with it, he'd walk around wearing an armored breastplate. He is not a "war president". He is a president that took his country to war by an act of aggression. He invaded another country that had done nothing to us, certainly nothing to warrant what has since transpired.
So, as often as I can without being clumsy about it, I like to refer what's happening in Iraq as "our invasion of Iraq" rather than "our war with Iraq". Hell, there really doesn't seem to be any kind of sovereign nation to fight there any way. It's more like heavy duty police action against a bunch of armed gangs.
Technically and practically we invaded Iraq, but you will never, ever, hear anyone in this administration say that word. That's just one more reason I like to refer to it as an invasion. Whatever they call it, I want to call it something different because it always is. They lie, all the time, about everything. If they say something is blue, I put my money on the color being almost anything other than blue.
When Bush uses the word war he wants us to imagine a reluctant hero that had no choice but to resort to violence in order to save the day. What happened in Iraq was nothing like that. He calls it a war and I want to be contrary and call it something else and "invasion" sounds to me a more accurate description.
Again, I'm not really arguing with you. You're totally correct in what you said. This "war" or "invasion" thing is just a semantic burr in my shorts that bugs me. I don't think George Bush has ever done a dignified thing in his entire life, and I feel calling this a war seems, to me, to give him a dignity he doesn't deserve.
|