03-13-2004, 10:14 PM
Honestly, it does not interest me much why you oppose the Iraq invasion. There are plenty of widely held reasons and I agree with some of the points. What interests me is that you accept the premise that you must choose either to side with the United States or with the terrorists as true, and then choose to side with the terrorists. I assume that you don't really accept the premise at all and are basically just trolling with it, which is why you got the response you got. But that aside, what does it really mean? What does it mean for Bush to make this statement (specifically talking about the 'for us or for the terrorists' premise here) and what does it mean for Jester and the other world leaders?
Here's how I see it, within the original context: If Toronto were bombed tomorrow, with Canada being a strong ally of the U.S., the U.S. would obviously be willing to get involved in the investigation. Now let's say that investigation traced back to an extremist group in Great Britain. Now the statement becomes relevant to the U.K. The British government would face the ultimatum; cooperate in the investigation to whatever extent is needed to obtain justice and eliminate the local threat, or be held responsible as a nation for sponsoring terrorism and face the consequences as a nation. This is the new policy as of 2001, and a controversial one to be sure. But here is the point: by saying you are "against" us, it does not mean you are against the policy itself. It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem.
Here's how I see it, within the original context: If Toronto were bombed tomorrow, with Canada being a strong ally of the U.S., the U.S. would obviously be willing to get involved in the investigation. Now let's say that investigation traced back to an extremist group in Great Britain. Now the statement becomes relevant to the U.K. The British government would face the ultimatum; cooperate in the investigation to whatever extent is needed to obtain justice and eliminate the local threat, or be held responsible as a nation for sponsoring terrorism and face the consequences as a nation. This is the new policy as of 2001, and a controversial one to be sure. But here is the point: by saying you are "against" us, it does not mean you are against the policy itself. It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem.