Quote:
Originally posted by rsl12
also onetime: the "you're with us or you're against us" quote i'm thinking of WAS directed towards germany and france--saying that they should get on board with the program. I will look it up for you to get the exact quote if you like.
EDIT: Here's the quote and a link: "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
To put it into perspective: let's say that you're on a football team and the halfback tells you, "I want you to do this and this and this. Either you're with me or you're against me. If you don't do what I say, you will be held accountable." Wouldn't you think he was being kind of an asshole? What gives him the right to say what the team is going to do?
And in terms of the Gore speech, wouldn't you say the halfback is showing contempt for anyone who disagrees with him?
|
First, this article is from 2001, long before the invasion of Iraq.
Obviously, since the invasion hadn't happened yet and we didn't know where the French and Germans would ultimately stand on their participation, he was talking about the entire war on terror not specifically the war in Iraq. Iraq, as described by Bush and others, is only one front in the war on terror. Certainly the French and Germans are cooperating with us in fighting terror outside of Iraq. Their efforts couldn't possibly be described as inactivity as they regularly share intelligence about terrorist activity.
In truth, I don't quite get your analogy. Who am I in the situation? Am I supposed to be blocking for him? Am I the quarterback? I don't know. Being "held accountable" doesn't quite communicate what exactly will happen if I don't do what he says. If I don't block for him will I not get credit for a successful play or is he going to kill me? There are certainly very different levels of consequence. Bush has never, as far as I've seen, said what the consequences of opposing US policy will be. Certainly the implication for those who are directly supporting terrorists or who are themselves terrorists the implications are clear. As far as our allies in the war on terror, he leaves plenty of room for them to contribute with having to send forces and he doesn't say that if you don't support us we're going to invade you. It's just a lot of hyperbole and nobody can really think we're going to completely sever our relationships with those countries who didn't join us in Iraq. Will they pay penalties for not supporting us? Absolutely. They will get the cold shoulder in lots of negotiations, they will not benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq, they will not get our support in the future on some things.