PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
I think many of us have seen Michael Moore's compelling "Farenheit 9/11" documentary, which was largely anti-Bush, in which he questions why America went to war post-9/11.
Well, recently, I saw a documentary which focused on that documentary, and (allegedly) exposed numerous fallacies in Moore's documentary. Obviously, it was rather pro-Buh and pro-war. Suffice it to say that both documentaries made compelling arguments and had solid points, and I think the right answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two pieces, but that's not what this thread is about.
In the pro-war/Bush, anti-Michael Moore documentary, a very interesting note was made by Ron Silver, a contributor to the documentary, in defense of Bush and choosing to go to war. Before I get into that, let me just remind everyone that Bush and the government has gotten a ton of flack for going to war and staying with the war for so long. And I'm not here trying to defend it (or tear it down), but merely noting a point that I feel is kind of lost in the discussion, and here is that point made by Ron Silver:
Silver states that in going to war, the Bush administration (if nothing else) was trying to avert the country from experiencing a similar situation that it endured in the late 1930's before it entered WWII. In the late 1930's, America avoided entering into war due to the sentiments of select American groups that were outspokenly anti-war. And we let Nazi-Germany grow, and grow, and grow. Until it became what it was, an evil and tyrannical powerhouse of a country that committed heinous acts, such as the Holocaust. Instead of acting early, we dragged our feet and avoided conflict, and Nazi Germany grew into what it became, and terrible atrocities were inflicted upon millions. Instead of dealing with it in its infantile stages in the 30's, we eventually had to deal with it during WWII in the 40's some millions of deaths later. We paid the price for dragging our feet, and if we could do it over again, I'm sure we would.
Fastforward to 2001, when 9/11 occurred. Bush's administration felt that instead of dragging our feet and letting things escalate (like they did in the 40's), we should take pre-emptive action NOW and wage war (to handle it like we could have and should have early in the 30's). Now, one could argue Nazi-Germany was more ferocious back then than terrorist groups of today. And on the surface, that's clearly true. But you have to throw something else into the equation that evens things up: nuclear weapons are now on the table in today's world. With weapons of mass destruction potentially in the equation, those puny terrorist groups become much more ferocious, at least potentially.
So, instead of avoiding war and allowing the enemy to grow (a mistake we made before WWII), we decided to take early action now and nip it in the butt before it grew out of control. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. But when you throw in the wildcard of nuclear weapons, we couldn't afford not to take action. We didn't want to make the same mistake twice. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and if nothing else when it comes to this war, we can at least say we didn't drag our feet on this one, and that we are doing everything we can possibly do early on in order to defeat this enemy before it grows any larger.
The Bush administration gets a lot of flack, some of it well-deserved, but I thought this was an interesting pro-Bush note to throw out there. I'm not a huge fan of him or the war, but I also don't mind either. And when you phrase things the way Mr. Silver did, it's quite convincing, at least when you look at it from that perspective.
Well, recently, I saw a documentary which focused on that documentary, and (allegedly) exposed numerous fallacies in Moore's documentary. Obviously, it was rather pro-Buh and pro-war. Suffice it to say that both documentaries made compelling arguments and had solid points, and I think the right answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two pieces, but that's not what this thread is about.
In the pro-war/Bush, anti-Michael Moore documentary, a very interesting note was made by Ron Silver, a contributor to the documentary, in defense of Bush and choosing to go to war. Before I get into that, let me just remind everyone that Bush and the government has gotten a ton of flack for going to war and staying with the war for so long. And I'm not here trying to defend it (or tear it down), but merely noting a point that I feel is kind of lost in the discussion, and here is that point made by Ron Silver:
Silver states that in going to war, the Bush administration (if nothing else) was trying to avert the country from experiencing a similar situation that it endured in the late 1930's before it entered WWII. In the late 1930's, America avoided entering into war due to the sentiments of select American groups that were outspokenly anti-war. And we let Nazi-Germany grow, and grow, and grow. Until it became what it was, an evil and tyrannical powerhouse of a country that committed heinous acts, such as the Holocaust. Instead of acting early, we dragged our feet and avoided conflict, and Nazi Germany grew into what it became, and terrible atrocities were inflicted upon millions. Instead of dealing with it in its infantile stages in the 30's, we eventually had to deal with it during WWII in the 40's some millions of deaths later. We paid the price for dragging our feet, and if we could do it over again, I'm sure we would.
Fastforward to 2001, when 9/11 occurred. Bush's administration felt that instead of dragging our feet and letting things escalate (like they did in the 40's), we should take pre-emptive action NOW and wage war (to handle it like we could have and should have early in the 30's). Now, one could argue Nazi-Germany was more ferocious back then than terrorist groups of today. And on the surface, that's clearly true. But you have to throw something else into the equation that evens things up: nuclear weapons are now on the table in today's world. With weapons of mass destruction potentially in the equation, those puny terrorist groups become much more ferocious, at least potentially.
So, instead of avoiding war and allowing the enemy to grow (a mistake we made before WWII), we decided to take early action now and nip it in the butt before it grew out of control. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. But when you throw in the wildcard of nuclear weapons, we couldn't afford not to take action. We didn't want to make the same mistake twice. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and if nothing else when it comes to this war, we can at least say we didn't drag our feet on this one, and that we are doing everything we can possibly do early on in order to defeat this enemy before it grows any larger.
The Bush administration gets a lot of flack, some of it well-deserved, but I thought this was an interesting pro-Bush note to throw out there. I'm not a huge fan of him or the war, but I also don't mind either. And when you phrase things the way Mr. Silver did, it's quite convincing, at least when you look at it from that perspective.
