mysteryman wrote:
No its not.There aere approximately 20 countries sending troops or logistical support in the coalition in Iraq.
Why do the liberals refuse to admit that?
Does it destroy your idea that the US went in alone?
Most of the country's came on board because of being threatened to have monetary and marketing games played on them - the others came in spite of Bush.....
And of those 20 countries, which are major world powers, pray tell?
Throwing on a couple of tiny nations is political manipulation at it's highest. Don't fall prey to sound bites.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:And of those 20 countries, which are major world powers, pray tell?
Throwing on a couple of tiny nations is political manipulation at it's highest. Don't fall prey to sound bites.
Cycloptichorn
Then, there is Spain, Italy and England. All three had a referendum vote and because the press manipulated them - they all decidedly voted against Bush.....
Italy and Britain both have a good representation in Iraq...
So, I guess we have 3 out of 20 that matter, and you can't really count Spain anymore. 3 countries doesn't really sound as good as a quote, though, does it?
Britain is so tied to us Idealogically it doesn't surprise me they are there. And Italy is not what I would call a world power these days, I mean, noone exactly fears the mighty italian army, or the italian economy, or the massive itatilian cultural machine.
So we're down to One. One major power out of the top 8-10 supports us. Real 'multinational' effort we have going on.
Cycloptichorn
Didin't know you wanted the whole list...
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
Turkey's Gov't is with us. Their people rioted rather than let us have military bases there, so I doubt you could say they are really behind the cause.
Nice to know that Nicaragua and Uzbekistan are doing their parts. We've really assembled a coalition of giants, here.
Cycloptichorn
What is this, the re-occuring attack of the 26 diplomats? I think it is in every thread now...
Cycloptichorn, were in my power to do so, thos countries would be receiving all the aid that we send to france and germany and spain, etc... We can support their economies instead and make them economic powerhouses.
Your continued sardonic remarks are getting real old. why not offer up something you didn't hear franken spew forth and come on in and join the team. why not pitch in for the big win, huh?
If anyone but two gun George were at the helm Bush 41 would probably on the list of 26.
Quote:Your continued sardonic remarks are getting real old. why not offer up something you didn't hear franken spew forth and come on in and join the team. why not pitch in for the big win, huh?
Heh. I haven't listened to Franken in months, but it's nice to know he's still on the right track.
You'll have to pardon my disparaging tone - I get a little choked up by all the false claims of 'international support.' I'm sure it does get old when someone points out the holes in your argument over and over and over again.
Quote:Cycloptichorn, were in my power to do so, thos countries would be receiving all the aid that we send to france and germany and spain, etc... We can support their economies instead and make them economic powerhouses.
That's nice. It doesn't have anything to do with our conversation, though.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote: There are many benefits to having a good international reputation...
People on this thread keep reintroducing this point as if someone is arguing the opposite.
There is value in having the world love or even like us. The question is at what price? The quickest way to have everyone love us is to give all of our riches away. Another relatively easy way is to place the interests of other countries over our own. We could probably even get a whole lot of Arabs to love us if we simply turned our back on Israel.
There is nothing to be gained from pissing people off just because we can, and if our goal can be met while the world cheers, so much the better, but our goal is not to get the rest of the world to love us.
Cycloptichorn wrote: Unless, of course, you consider yourself to be above them, which is the tone I get from your piece, Finn. Don't be that guy.
I have a feeling you are reading my postings for tone rather than content anyway Cyclo so I am not too concerned about your perception either. This doesn't signify that I consider myself above you, simply unimpressed by you.
Ambassador Galbraith was on Cspan tonight talking, very animatedly, about the incompetence of the administration as regards the Kurds particularly, and more generally, Iraq. It would be well worth seeking out the transcript of what he said.
Two or five years up the road, more books like Richard Clarke's are going to be published. Folks who have served US and world interests for decades are going to give us some idea of just how extreme, and dangerously incompetent, this administration was.
Cycloptichorn wrote:So, I guess we have 3 out of 20 that matter, and you can't really count Spain anymore. 3 countries doesn't really sound as good as a quote, though, does it?
Britain is so tied to us Idealogically it doesn't surprise me they are there. And Italy is not what I would call a world power these days, I mean, noone exactly fears the mighty italian army, or the italian economy, or the massive itatilian cultural machine.
So we're down to One. One major power out of the top 8-10 supports us. Real 'multinational' effort we have going on.
Cycloptichorn
So what you are saying is that we need the support of "major powers," not little pissant countries like nicaragua or Estonia. We need raw power not moral or political support.
It appears you are further saying that not only do we need the support of "major powers," we need the support of "major powers" without ideological ties to us. Support from the UK doesn't get the Cyclo stamp of approval because it "is so tied to us ideologically."
Who are these top 8-10 major powers?
Your casual dismissal of nations like Italy and Uzbekistan seems awfully arrogant. Weren't you just counseling against such behavior?
we got the best countries that would accept our bribes plus Tony and Howard.
blatham wrote:Ambassador Galbraith was on Cspan tonight talking, very animatedly, about the incompetence of the administration as regards the Kurds particularly, and more generally, Iraq. It would be well worth seeking out the transcript of what he said.
Two or five years up the road, more books like Richard Clarke's are going to be published. Folks who have served US and world interests for decades are going to give us some idea of just how extreme, and dangerously incompetent, this administration was.
Personally, I believe we are doing an injustice to the Kurds, but I am amused when Administration critics trot the issue out in an attempt to give it yet another black eye.
Providing the Kurds with what they want and probably deserve, could very well lead to war: War between the Kurds and the Arabs of Iraq and/or war between the Kurds and the Turks.
Bush & Co are in a no-win situation with their critics. Every route taken in Iraq is perilous and provides ample ammunition for charges of incompetence, not matter how situations develop.
dyslexia wrote:we got the best countries that would accept our bribes plus Tony and Howard.
And, as we all know, France, Germany, Russia and China would never accept bribes or be motivated by anything other than the pursuit of justice and peace.
We should all just face it. If you can't get Putin, Chirac, Schroeder and Jintao on board, your plan must be ill conceived and immoral.
Why did Britain follow on this? That's a terribly interesting question, and there's one Brit on the board here who tosses up suppositions, and an old chum of mine has been in England for 30 years now and he has some ideas. And the Brit press has tried to figure this out, and everybody is really puzzled.
It has killed Blair in the polls, and in recent elections. The most promising career in god knows how long is done.
The thing is, there were a ton of people in government and out in both Britain and the US (and elsewhere) who yelled "Don't do this!" And they argued why Blair shouldn't..."what is imminent in this threat?"...."unilateral pre-emption is very dangerous, it's a dumb precedent!"..."look who is advising Bush, read what they've written, these guys are extreme!"...and "this will make the us safer????"
So why did Blair fall into this hole.
One rather compelling, if seldom discussed, notion has to do with another explicitly stated goal of the neoconservative fellas. Specifically, that goal is to actively prevent any other world power arising and approaching the power and wealth level of the US. The US, explicitly stated we'll recall, is to be dominant.
And what would happen if the expanding EU were to include Britain as full partner and ally?
finn I must have forgot, what was the security council vote again?
