In my all-too-brief study of rhetoric, I learned that the side that gets to define the terms of the argument most often wins. This often comes down to deciding what to call the two sides. David Eddings tackled his head-on in “The Belgariad,” when the protagonist asked if they were the good guys in the struggle between “Good” and “Evil.” The ancient sorceror answered that he prefers “us” and “them,” as it avoids a lot of useless arguments.
Nonetheless, names mean a lot. This is hugely obvious in the abortion issue, where one side insists that its a matter of “pro-choice versus anti-choice,” while the others say it’s “pro-life versus pro-abortion.” Simply accepting the other side’s name is a huge rhetorical concession.
Similarly, with the argument over the war on terror, ‘our” side has a bit of a dilemma. The other side has staked out “anti-war” as their rallying cray, leaving us to be called “pro-war.” That’s not entirely accurate, at least in my case, and rather damning. So I reject that.
So, what should “we” call ourselves? That’s a tough one.
I thought about “pro-freedom,” but I disliked it. It’s too vague for my tastes. It could mean anything, and therefore means nothing. I don’t like that sort of thing. We need something clearer, more precise, perhaps with some historical context that truly captures the sentiment that we didn’t choose to fight this war on terror, but dammit, we’re gonna win it.
And then it hit me. Let the other side be “anti-war.” If they choose not to recognize that the war started a long time ago, and we’ve only recently started fighting back, that’s their stupidity. We have more important things to worry about than their whining and kvetching.
We’re pro-VICTORY.
It’s a good word. It says exactly what our goal is: to win, to defeat the enemy, to stop those out to destroy us and our way of life and impose their tyrannical vision on people.
And it has positive historic connotations, too. In World War II, we built “Victory” ships, bought “Victory” bonds, sent heroes on “Victory” tours. It’s clear, it’s concise, and it doesn’t overpromise or overcommit or flail about in rhetorical helplessness.
And it casts a lot of the “anti-war” movement into exactly their role (yeah, ANSWER, I’m talking to you): they’re not against the war, they’re simply rooting for the other side.
Fingers forward to bullwinkle and JT, back of the hand to cat, conor et al…
Epador, hardly an inspiring riposte. If that’s your best, let’s call it a day as the debate is going nowhere.
Conor
Possibly you missed the elections in Afghanistan about a week ago? I would understand if you had, seeing how this historic event made possible by the US was given the same coverage and respect by the major US MSM as a correction notice in the NYTimes.
And, by your disdain of a pro-victory stance, you certainly underline the raison d’etre of the otherside — seeing that America loses and that those we have helped lose, too. I mean, heck, if the US didn’t depose the Taliban and Saddam it would all be burka’s, mass graves and trains running on time — nice easy status quo — and you wouldn’t have to worry your pretty little head about the big moral questions of the universe.
Darleen – your “moral compass” argument is misplaced. I hate the violence in Iraq, just as I hated the violence and repression under Saddam Hussein. The problem with your argument is that you made the violence much worse. I’m sure you will fail to understand this point, in fact I’m sure you will deliberately misrepresent it. The fact is that there were NO suicide bombers in Iraq before you invaded. We were all shocked by the London bombings that took place on one day. The same number of people are killed EVERY day in Iraq.
Before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Do I agree with that? No. Do I support suicide bombers? No.
The suicide bombers in Israel haven’t stopped because Saddam Hussein is in prison. And now they have terrorized a nation to such an extent that nearly a thousand people were died in the stampede in Baghdad last month. Think about it – a thousand people. Not as many as 9/11, but 9/11 was just one day – not EVERY day of the year.
Do I wish the bombers would stop? Yes. But sorry, they take no more notice of my opinions than you do.
Let me repeat – there were NO suicide bombers in Iraq before you invaded. Now, they seem to breeding like rabbits.
JC – you conclude that Sarin doesn’t count as WMD because they found Sarin last year. Sarin IS a weapon of mass destruction. The reason it didn’t count was because it had degraded to the point of being useless. This was precisely what Scott Ritter said was the case before the invasion in 2003: Almost all of Saddam’s chemical weapons had been destroyed; what remained was so far beyond its shelf-life it would be harmless goo. And that’s just what has been found – a few left-over munitions that were militarily useless.
Others criticize the mention of selling arms to Iran. 1% is a very small proportion. But it’s interesting that that 1% began when Iraq was conducting a murderous war of aggression against a neighboring country. The million people who died in that war didn’t need people helping Iraq continue the killing. And of course there were those (almost) under-the-radar arms sales to Iran.
Before the Iran-Iraq war, it’s hardly surprising the US wasn’t selling arms to Saddam – his party had nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. Back in the ’50s that same action in Iran had been enough for Britain and the US to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister and install and the murderous dictatorship of the Shah – who incidentally started Iran’s nuclear program, pursuing the full nuclear cycle with the blessing of the US government. Back then, the United States didn’t have any qualms about a country swimming in oil saying that it needed to enrich uranium. Back then, the US accepted the argument that Iran needed to look to the future, that petroleum should be used for export income and petrochemicals. Now, those arguments are forgotten.
Well, if you get your war with Iran, it is possible that a nuclear weapons program might be found. It is far more likely that the accusations against Tehran will be found to be just as groundless as the fabricated “massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.”.
But being proved wrong will not change your minds. Why should it when you can chant “Pro-Victory! Pro-Victory!”
you have to remember after all we have to support our troops , our president and our country , if we dont for sure we are doomed ..
I read this in more than one historical account:
The British “V” for victory goes back to the 100 Tears War against the French. The English and Welsh longbowmen ruled the battlefield of their day. It was not uncommon for the French to cut of the arrow holding fingers of captured soldiers. The “V” was used to show the enemy that the English still had their fingers, and the French were doomed, as was usually the case. It wasn’t until Joan of Arc that the English were pushed off the continent, leading to the generalization that no french-man ever won a war. War is hell, but it is a worse kind of hell on the loosers. Me, I’m pro-victory all the way.
cat,
I’d be happy to address why we would send a precursor of sarin gas to Iraq, but the Wikipedia article doesn’t say which one we gave him. It could have been an arsenic salt needed for ore mining or something like that that we gave him. If you name a specific chemical, I’ll Google it’s uses.
Also, Saddam was supposed to give up ALL his WMDs, voluntarily, whether they were past their shelf life or not.
Whatever we gave Saddam before 1990, after Desert Storm when he was subject to UN approved sanctions we refused to let him have weapons grade clorine.
For our troubles we were villified by all and sundry for maliciously causing the deaths of poor Iraqi children who could not get safe water to drink.
Does no one remember this?
What does victory in Iraq look like. I’ll assume that whomever asked did it in good faith.
Firstly, there is more to victory than the military fight and Iraq is part of a larger conflict. This is what *I* think victory in Iraq will look like.
In past wars, as someone mentioned, you “won” by occupying the other country, preferably annexing it permanently. This was the goal of both Germany and Japan in WW2. This isn’t our goal. In fact, this would cause us to lose the larger conflict. To *win* we need a few things to happen… the military victroy is a given. The enemy can blow up things and people but other than an essential *vandalism* they accomplish nothing. They aren’t going to disappear any time soon but it really doesn’t matter. We can only lose to them by rolling over and begging them to kill us.
More important is establishing self determined and prosperous (for everyone, not just the rulers or warlords) nations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re doing, and THEY are doing, a pretty amazing job so far with elections and women’s sufferage and education and rebuilding. Far from smooth sailing but no one sees this as a *problem* except for those looking for failure.
To effectively end the terror threat the middle east must be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Victory will be when the first spontaneous free election is held in some *other* country in the middle east.
Victory will be when Iraq is no longer dependant on oil. And Saudi. When Saudi enters the modern world and no longer simply imports the luxuries while utterly wasting the resources it has in its population, a *waste* that is reflected in the hopelessness of young men who somehow think that blowing themselves up at a young age is glorious compared to looking forward to a future of… nothing.
Tangent here… do you realize that Saudi imports it’s labor because no Saudi male who even hopes to get a wife can afford to give the impression that he is forced to labor? No matter how poor, they’ve got to give the impression that the family is among the idle rich or else no one is going to let their daughter marry you?
Victory in the War on Terror, of which Iraq is only a part, requires that the social stupidity that created Bin Laden (a very wealthy young man) and Saddam (a sickly brutal tyrant) has to end. And the “just leave them alone” folks make that harder every single time they undermine our efforts over there. Every enabling slogan that convinces the enemy that if they just keep murdering school teachers (was it six teachers just today or yesterday?) and vandalizing roads or public works or assassinating police or officials or (trying) to blow up some Americans, keeps that progress from happening. It makes winning take longer. It increases the cost.
he enemy can blow up things and people but other than an essential *vandalism* they accomplish nothing. They aren’t going to disappear any time soon but it really doesn’t matter.
So killing innocent people is vandalism, and terrorists aren’t going away but that doesn’t matter? Isn’t that the point?
Far from smooth sailing but no one sees this as a *problem* except for those looking for failure.
What you’re saying here is that people convinced of the inevitable success refuse to recognize problems as problems, and therefore do not attempt to remedy them. Case in the point the Iraqi constitution, which if the administration has it their way (no postponment), it may very well cause civil war.
Victory will be when Iraq is no longer dependant on oil.
Every oil-rich country is dependent on oil. You’re saying victory will be when they run out?
And how exactly do you propose we end the social and political structure of Saudi Arabia when they are our closest ally in the region and are, well, pretty “buddy buddy” with the people who designed and carried out the GWOT (you’re familiar with them, they run the White House and the Pentagon)? By the way I agree with you about Saudi Arabia, but I don’t see this crew doing anything about it.
You then go on to repeat the stupidity that criticism of the GWOT here is not only heard by the people fighting in Iraq, but they pay attention to it. Do you think if there were no Americans against this war the terrorists would all pack it in and go home?
Darleen.
I am more than aware of the fact that there was an election in Afghanistan. I am also more than aware that Bin Laden and his band of terrorists are still running around in said country.
What you fail to grasp is that Saddam was not an Islamic fundamentalist. He was just a bad old fashioned dictator just like any other despot around the world today and perhaps despised as much by the fundamentalists as by the west.. So your talk of Burkas is baseless and convey’s a complete lack of understanding of the situation. Moreover the removal of Saddam has played into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists who now have an opporunity to consolidate their power base. So instead of making Iraq a better place, in fact it has been made worse. After all if the democratic process is allowed to flourish and the Iraqi electorate install an Islamic Cleric who ineffect will be a dictator, will probably foment relations with Iran et al, will America respect the wishes of the Iraqi electorate? We all know the answer to that one.
With regards to the big moral questions of the universe, that is soemthing I shall leave to those whom are far cleverer than me. However I shall continue to ruminate over more local matters without the pressure of being coerced into a decision by the powers that be, as that is what a good citizen does. You on the other hand can swallow hook line and sinker the official government line. After all, your loyalty is unquestioning and unwavering, the kind of stooge citizen that every government wished it had.
For those of you like cat and Conor, while there are deaths in Iraq from terrorists frequently, only someone who is completely naive, or partisan, would argue Iraq is worse off now. Kind of like implying the hardships faced by the colonies after the withdrawl of British troops following the Revolutionary War proove it was wrong to proclaim our independance…not a perfect analogy, but still fitting. How’s this, then: The despair of the the Japanese and the economic hardships they faced after WWII prove that we shouldn’t have retaliated for Pearl Harbor. We should have sought to understand that our empirical foreign policies had driven the rational emperor to attack the worlds greatest evil and given them the State of Hawaii in compensation. That’s roughly the position of the “anti-war” crowd today.
We will have a new democracy in Iraq, and judging by the constitutional draft that was circulated recently, even if they are more Islam-centric, they will have adequate rights in regard to personal freedoms for religion, speech and equality. That’s just to start…how long did it take us to perfect democracy? Yes, that’s rhetorical, we still have the ability to create ammendments to our constitution hundreds of years after the fact…and have found reason to use this ability somewhat recently.
Also, there is way too much hysteria about a civil war in Iraq. Civil war is not the end of the world…we had ours and survived. And that wasn’t after a majority of the population had been held captive to the murderous regime of a minority. We don’t expect them to have a carbon copy of the British parliment by next week, for Gods sake.
I like “pro-victory.” It fits. I always reply in the same fashion to liberals who demand I wear the “pro-war” badge. I’ve spoken to many such people who demand that since they are anti-war, as a matter of course I must be pro-war. I always reply that I will wear the pro-war label as soon as they accept the obvious label they must then wear in compensation, since I am also pro-life.
*sigh* mantis… if you think “vandalism” is not a strong enough word, perhaps you ought to talk it over with the Vandals.
Actually I think vandalism is a term that refers to the destruction of property, especially public property, as the Vandals did when they sacked Rome and trashed all the pretty buildings. As far as I know the terrorists don’t explode carbombs to destroy the car.
Unless you were talking about the punk band, in which case I’ll take it up with them next time I see them.
Brainy
Partial analogies, references to wars past, civil war and democracy but my favourite “empirical foreign polices”. All sounds very impressive. But given that there is a complete absence of coherency or logic in your rant it’s probably best that we agree to disagree.
Conor, translation: You can’t win so you’ll cop out?
Brainy.
This is not a war where smart bombs will determine the outcome. Smart thinking is what is required. Sadly, there seems to be too few smart people in control of the situation. Sadder still is how a government has brainwashed its people into believing that its continued existence and well being is dependent upon the removal of a despot from Iraq. Do you honestly beieve that Saddam posed a threat to America? Given his first taste of defeat at American hands in the Gulf War it is inconceivable that he would have launched an offensive against the States. No, something stinks about this war. It might take years, decades for the truth to emerge.
Now before you accuse me of being a bleeding heart anti war liberal, I would like to point out that I am not. Anti war, yes. Liberal, no. Opposition to the war does not make one a liberal. I support the troops and pray for their safe return, but I believe that they should not have been ordered there in the first place. Perhaps you can provide a valid reason for the removal of Saddam. Emancipation of the Iraqi people will prove a weak argument as from here on in the the onus will be on America to remove every dictator in the world. A very tall order indeed. But perhaps the Iraqi people were singled out for such help for more altruistice reasons? You tell me. I am all ears
I like it. As I’ve said time and again, it is not a “peace” movement, it is not an “anti-war” movement. It is a pro-appeasement, anti-America, “head in the sand” movement.
“Oh, if we just leave them alone or try to understand, they’ll leave us alone.” B.S.!
If 9/11 taught us anything it is that the Islamic jihadists want all who differ from them dead. And they will stop at nothing to make us dead.
If you are not pro-victory, then you are pro-defeat.
James @ Right Face!
James
In a nutshell, Iraq was a secular state prior to the allied invasion. Islamic fundamentalism was not an issue because Saddam kept the mullahs and any other body that posed a threat to his power, in prison or had them killed. But this is probably all academic to you. It seems to be the case that if Bush says it is, then it is! Like a brainwashed member of a cult you allow yourself to be taken in by the government spin. My guess is that if Bush said shit was custard, you would eat it and probably be looking for seconds.
Thanks a bunch for this! I put the button on Liberty Just in Case just now! Great idea.
Conor, either you haven’t been listening or you refuse to believe the reasons for the invasion. We knew Saddam had WMD’s. Now, it appears he got rid of them, either by moving them or by actually destroying them like he was supposed to, but the onus was on him to PROVE this to the world and he didn’t. That coupled with his almost daily abandonment of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War was more than ample justification to invade. We wanted to invade for a few reasons. The most important was to show that we meant buisness in the war on terror. Our reputation in the region is that we were weak militarily and would not stand up to defiance or attack. Bin Laden explicitly stated this as a reason he thought he could get away with 9/11. We had to prove we had the fortitude to engage in a prolonged conflict and win. It was also important to set up a democracy in the region, and Iraq was suitably placed as a focal point for that democracy to spread throughout the region. This has actually been proven correct, as witnessed by the remarkable developments in Lebanon, the Ukraine and elsewhere. The opposition parties in these countries were given hope and backing by our actions in Iraq. This was stated by one of the prominent politicians in Lebannon soon after the withdrawl of Syrian forces. It is funny that you poo-poo the idea of liberating 52 million people from a murderous…though secular, as you insist on pointing out..regime. It is true this wasn’t really our main goal, but odd that you would insist it is not a noble one. And while Iraq may be modeled more on Islam than under Sadam, odd for a population almost completely Muslim, the constitution has safeguards for freedom of religion, speech and gender equality. Our own constitution didn’t guarantee all of these things until more than a hundred years after it was ratified. This is how I know the war is justified. Your own screeching points more to a brainwashed moonbat than anything posted here in the affirmative.
Conor,
I find it ironic that you lefties think anyone who supports the war on terrorism or has good things to say about Bush must be slavishly and fanatically devoted to him and everything he says.
I disagree with a lot of what Bush does and says. Lately he sounds more like FDR than a conservative. Of course one of the lefts main taling points is that everybody on the right is a brain-washed Bushie. I understand that you are unable to see things any other way.
The fact remains that we are in a war for the survival of western culture and democracy. You’re either on our side or the enemies. There is no middle ground.
Brainy. All well and good, but would you please explain to me the threat that Saddam posed to the West. I am based in London but prior to the invasion I felt no threat from Saddam. Post Saddam, I now feel more threatened by some lunatic with a bomb in his bag. Ask the people in Spain, they will tell you the same thing. Similarly as an American, what threat did you feel from Saddam? Surely Bin Laden was the bigger threat but to the best of my knowledge he’s still running around Afghanistan, scot free, despite being responsible for the death of 3000 people on the US mainland. Correct me if I am wrong but I cant seem to remember Saddam having declared war on the US or the west. Would he be foolish again by invading a neighbour, unlikely.
I would have more respect for the architects of the war if they came out and admitted that the war was about oil rather than the liberation of a people.
Bush specifically said he didn’t pose an immenent threat, but that he was unwilling to wait for him to become one. As I have said, it was accepted as FACT, worldwide, that he had WMD’s and that he had harbored terrorists. The two could not be allowed the possibility to be combined. Idiot liberals would have raked Bush over the coals, rightly, in my opinion, if in late 2003, had we not attacked, a WMD went off in downtown LA. Bush was not willing to take that chance..hell protecting the American people is his JOB. Sadam technically declared war on the U.S. daily..every time he violated the cease-fire agreement he signed at the end of the gulf war. He would have been exponentially more dangerous had the French, Germans and Russians been successful in getting the sanctions against him dropped…not that those 3 countries honored the sanctions, anyway, but the rest of the world would have been free to sell him whatever he wanted as well.
Idiotic ramblings about this being a war for oil are partisan and pathetic, IMHO. As far as Bin Laden, hiding in caves and running in fear for your life daily hardly equals “scot free.” Sitting in Gitmo with a taxpayer funded Koran would be “scot free.” I want him to assume room temperature…..be “D.E.D. Ded”…ASAP. But there are other considerations here and finding one man somewhere in the world ain’t so easy as you would like it to be.
Admit that it was a war for oil? If it was a war for oil why does my gas still cost so damn much?
It is a war to remove from power a ruthless bloodthirsty dictator. A tyrant who:
– had tortured, poisoned and murdered thousands of his own citizens
– committed genocide against ethnic groups (Kurds, Ma’dan, Shia) in his country
– invaded and warred against his neighbors
– developed and stockpiled numerous types of WMDs
– used WMDs against those neighbors and ethnic groups
– ruined vast areas of his country (the systematic attacks against the habitat of the Ma’dan or “Marsh Arabs” in Mesopotamia)
– built a nuclear reactor
– sought to attain an offensive nuclear capability
– violated numerous UN sanctions for 12 years
– committed acts of war and agression against the nations enforcing said sanctions
– repeatedly refused to allow inspections of his country to verify his compliance with said sanctions
– paid rewards to the families of “Palestinian” terrorists who murder innocent civilians
– provided safe haven to terrorists like Abu Nibal, while he trained the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Baghdad
– maintaining diplomatic contacts with Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers
– used his own military instructors to train Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq
– impermissible discrimination in regard to fair and necessary distribution of food and health care to the people of Iraq
More than enough reason to go to war against Saddam’s regime and liberate the people of Iraq.
James @ Right Face!
Y’know, Conor, you’re right. It has to be a war for oil, because all that refusal to comply with U.N. orders and potshots at patrol planes couldn’t possibly have been Saddam trying to preserve the appearance of being a threat or anything. After all, only someone who had nothing to hide would try to hide it, right? People should never deal with potential threats until those threats are completely manifest.
So … next time I’m working in the garden, I’m not gonna put down mulch. After all, when I’m planting the plants, there’s no reason to safeguard against weeds and dehydration until they’re already killing off the lilies, right?
And who needs vaccinations? I don’t see any reason to worry about tetanus ’til I’m curled up and spasming in pain on the hospital bed. And obviously, hepatitis has yet to prove itself a credible threat to me. I’m not going to put myself through a few days of unpleasant pain when the chance of infection and death are just that – chances.
Oh, and take that chicken back out of the refrigerator! You don’t see any bacteria growing on it, do you? Refrigeration isn’t necessary; it’s just a conflict for conveniently chilly beverages, and don’t you dare tell me otherwise.
Too bad nobody thoguht of this in 2003. Maybe we could have had an actual victory by now. Seriously, if more people had been calling themselves pro-victory in 2001 maybe we’d have caught Osama by now. Everybody loves victory; even the anti-war folks love victory. Anti-Bush people love victory too. Unfortunately calling for victory doesn’t seem to help our president find his first clue about how to actually achieve anything victorious.
I love reading the leftists posts. Cat cites Animal Farm as a reference source and Conor’s measure of peace and stability in the world is “there were no suicide bombers in Iraq before the war”.
Cat: George Orwell (Who’s real name was Eric Blair) was a socialist, and perhaps a borderline anarchist, who had a great distain for authority and supported the Palestinians. His view of the world, even during his lifetime, was greatly out of touch with the mainstream. Please don’t cite his fictional works as a legitmate reference to today’s very real issues.
Conor: No, we know of no “suicide bombers” in Iraq under Saddam’s reign. Their occupation back then was categorized as “loyal Baathist” or “Republican Guard” and they raided Iraqi homes searching for and killing anyone who showed any potential for opposing Hussein. They were thugs and murders then and they are still thugs and murders today. The only difference is that they aren’t exclusively targeting unarmed civilians now.
And, yes, we did back Saddam back in the 70’s and even the 80’s. He was viewed then as a progressive leader (he was vice-president of Iraq until 1979) back in the 70’s before he forced General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr to resign. Incidently, al-Bakr was a relative of Saddam’s and was looking to sign a treaty with Syria (also a Baathist state) to unite the 2 nations under the control of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. That is when Saddam accended to the Presidency of Iraq.
In the 80’s, we gave him money and arms in the Iran-Iraqi war for 2 good reasons: 1) he was viewed as a secular leader as opposed to the fundamentalist Islamist Khomeini, and 2) we didn’t want him consolidating his influence with other pan-Arab nations in the region. You should also know that we did this in conjunction with both Russia and France. After Saddam’s 8 year war with Iran, an estimated 1.7 million people were dead and Iraq had an estimated debt of $75 billion dollars.
So while Saddam started out as a revolutionary (in the sense he helped the poor through technology and was secular in his beliefs) and was backed by the people of Iraq, he certainly didn’t end up that way. He gassed 15,000 Kurds during the Iraq-Iran War, amassed thousands of rounds of chemical weapons (the so-called “missing WMDs”), and murdered anyone who he perceived as opposition. But, no, you’re right. Iraq didn’t have “suicide bombers”. Tell it to the hundreds of thousands who died under his regime.
6pence
.