The torture debate after Bush

Remove all ads!

Ohwwwmm??!? Soooooohw, did they use nationalism alongside other motivators? And did nationalism produce bad results, as always...?

 

No. I told you, they used fear. And misinformation. I don't remember anyone saying "We need to invade Iraq to make America great and strong again!" They said "We need to invade Iraq because they're dangerous, have WMDs, and fund terrorists that will attack us!" The closest they came to 'nationalism' was national identity: meaning people in NY being attacked is bad for people in Texas.

 

What about: 'When you're against the war you're un-American and a traitor, and if you don't like it go to Canada?' Point is, while the war goals weren't driven by nationalism, the war fever and support for the war itself was.

 

It played a role, but I don't really think it was a significant one. This is evidenced by the number of people who were actively against the war, yet weren't arrested, attacked, or otherwise silenced for it. Sure, some of them were arrested, usually for going out of line. A few others were attacked, by loons from the extremist right who were then arrested themselves. By and large, though, the movement didn't get anything more than verbal abuse. That still suggests to me that fear was the main factor.

 

Yes I do think it played a very significant role, considering the utter impossibility to discuss the war and question its cause openly in late 2002 and early 2003. I remember that period particularly well.

That is to say, nationalism was utilised as a tool to build support for the war. In that nationalism was not inly significant but essential.

 

Oh, I'll agree that those in power at the time (and not just political power) acted well out of line, and I hope that it never happens again (though, honestly, fear is too effective of a weapon to be left alone for long). I'm just saying that nationalism served no greater role than to expand the field of that fear's impacts.

 

Tal has the critical remark here, but he misquoted Bush. Bush actually said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" Which I'd say is a bit worse than being simply "against" the US.

 

Aldeth, I distinctly remember Bush saying 'against us' to the international community. He probably used both, because it's one of those typical 'signing statements' he used whenever he was asked a difficult or controversial question. I'd bet he used 'against us' more often, since it's a less syllable-intensive workout.

 

The quote I'm talking I'm refering to was not made to the international community, but was during a press conference - and I don't think it was done immediately following the 9/11 attacks, but rather in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. That was when they were spouting the "Saddam connected to the 9/11 attack" nonsense.