Archive for Saturday, May 27, 2006

Growing list

May 27, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

Recently a senior honor thesis, "Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration," by Devon Largio, (a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), uncovered 27 different rationales between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, for invading. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush. I am so looking forward to a follow-up list that will count the large number of reasons given since October 2002 for this illegal war.

Daniel Patrick Schamle,

Lawrence

Comments

xenophonschild 8 years, 12 months ago

Why wait? Arminitwit can concoct them all, and probably more still, from his own bogus website.

mefirst 8 years, 12 months ago

Saw a news clip the other night on Saudi Arabian textbooks used in all schools. They're full of hatred for the "infidels" (aka us). They instruct children to hate the infidels and to hurt them whenever possible. The U.S. is pleading with Saudi Arabia to water down the language; we'll see whether or not they feel like it. Doubtful.

It's likely the terrorists on the 9/11 flight (the majority of whom were from SAUDI ARABIA) went to these same schools. We continue to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq while our sweet heart, SAUDI ARABIA, continues to indoctrinate its young people to hate the U.S.

Misguided, ridiculous, insane, costly, deceptive, ineffective, and just plain WRONG! Just a few more words to describe this war (and in some cases, those who support it!)

Jamesaust 8 years, 12 months ago

Apparently, the author of this letter hasn't read the thesis. It can be found here: http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

For those (like the author) who cannot be bothered to do the work, here is a mini-summary.

During the period quoted, rationales for war in Iraq varied, depending on current developments and the viewpoints of the actors. There are no "post-October 2002" rationales that differ from those initially given, just differing prioritization as events dictate (less "wmd" arguments but re-emphasis on democratization, for example).

Money quote: "...the war in Iraq was broad and the rationales emcompassed a wide array of topics and concerns, from terrorism to oil, from protecting peace and freedom to finishing unfinished business."

The thesis really just categories the reasons given, when they were given, and to an extent who gave them. BTW - many of the reasons overlap or, to a non-academic, seem to be nitpicking distinctions; I'd say the thesis really identifies about 7 rationales.

The author here seems to conclude (by implication as there never is a direct statement made) that multiple, vaired, and at times, nuanced justifications for a decision are a sign of a weak argument or post hoc rationalization. Perhaps. And, like any "post-purchase consumer," he can only remember 1 or 2 of the "selling points" rather than the dozen or so that were thrown at him. Or perhaps just as any "marketing campaign" will show - there are many reasons to buy a car, a skincare product ... or a war.

If the author believes there is a "post-October 2002" reason, perhaps he can read the thesis and see if indeed there's anything new under the sun.

satchel 8 years, 12 months ago

You all crack me up!

The major koolaid drinker is the person who posted about us being misdirected and not going into Saudi Arabia. I about died laughing! I don't have to mention why we went to Afghanistan, but I happen to believe it was brilliant going into Iraq. I think the main reason was WMD's, but I do believe that while there is a 'main' reason, there are always other side reasons as well. In the case of Iraq, it was brilliant because Iraq is central in the middle east and they have become a democracy.

The thought was that If they do, then other arab nations will want that. You already see it spreading there. That is a great way to take out terrorism.

Some of the Arab nations who are run by these horrible, oppressive dictators, and the other nations such as Cuba and Venezuela are praying we get a far-left wacked out liberal as our next president. They are hoping our congress turns over as well because liberals are spineless. (So are the moderate republicans).

Have you ever thought that if we went into Saudi Arabia, as you suggested, that things would really be different in your views? I don't think so.. You would be whining about that as well. I don't buy what you all are saying about how things could have been done different.

And to you who said you don't care what they do over there, and hope they just fight themselves to death and we just need to stay out of it? If you are a liberal, you just exposed your hypocrisy. You said they are ALL hateful. That is hate-speech. That is bigotted. You should be ashamed of yourself!

What goes on over there does matter over here.. eventually. It seems the republicans, once again, are more compassionate than the libs. Another great reason that goes hand in hand with the spread of democracy over there so we DON'T have to go into every country run by a dictator, is that WE FREED AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING RAPED AND MURDERED AND TORTURED.. You liberals say you care about humanity, yet are against freeing these people. Then you say, "Well, then why didn't we go into other countries and do it, why Iraq?".. Because Iraq is central in that region and it's freedom makes a HUGE impact on the countries around it so we don't have to go into all of them. It is brilliant, and compassionate.. Yet you are against it because you hate BUsh, and you are a liberal who has no core.. No values. It is sad.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.