George Bush

Its not irony, simple logic.

The Coalition of The Willing consists of over 20 separate nations, and yet because only two meet your definition of "world powers," the effort is not truly multinational. According to you, other than the UK and the US, the members of the Coalition are pissant countries, and, therefore, cannot constitute a mutinational effort.

What is the UN but a league of these pissant countries joined by a relative handful of the "world powers."

According to what you have written, it follows that unless all or most of the "major power" members of the UN join in a UN effort, it is not multinational. Thus, all the efforts of the pissant countries combined are meaningless.

This is the UN you love?



To liberals perhaps, but not to everyone. Sometimes unilateral action is required, but it is your definition of multilateral action that is so absurd, and indefensible.

The dictionary defines multilateral as

1) Having many sides

2) Involving more than two nations or parties

Your definition is

1) Having many sides as long as they are all powerful

2) Involving more than two major power nations

The problem here is that you, along with all other knee jerk partisan critics of the Bush Administration, can't simply confine your opposition to the core issues. You want to pile on. And you can't let go of a point even when it is clearly obvious that it is in error. Instead you start twisting definitions and facts to support the point on which you have a death grip.

Let's put aside whether or not the Security Council actually approved invasion of Iraq or whether or not the Coalition is truly multi-lateral.
You love the UN, so let's stick with the UN.

Is your entire argument against the war in Iraq that it wasn't approved by the UN?

If it had been approved by the UN, you would be OK with it?

If so then as long as the UN approves of a given course of action, it's A-OK by you?

Are you arguing that the US cannot take action in the world without the approval of the UN?

Are you arguing that all decisions made by the UN as a body are correct and just, or that since somebody has to make decisions, better it be the UN (even if it is occassionally wrong) than any one or two nations (even if a crowd of pissant nations tag along with them.)

Do you actually have a deeply considered opinion on this issue or are you allowing Liberal sources, as you would seem to want to allow the UN, to decide for you?

Over and over, you say:
you, you, you, you this, you that. YOU seem very intent on making this a personal issue. Let's keep this a debate, please, and leave the personal parts out, please.



No.



I would have been MORE okay with it. Does that fit into your black-and-white view?



I of course reserve the right to agree with or disagree with any action at any time, according to my personal philosophy. Quit appealing to extremes.



No, I'm not arguing that at all; the recent actions of the US have shown that the US very well can take action regarless of the UN, simply because they don't have the power to stop us.

I find it somewhat hypocritical though that we expect other nations to follow UN regulations, and claim to be exempt from them ourselves.



Well, once again you are appealing to extremes. Of course, not all decisions made by the UN are going to be categorically just, because it is nothing more than a body of people, and people do make mistakes. But, since you bring it up, yes, I do think that if someone has to make decisions about going to war, the UN is better suited to doing so than any one or two countries, even if they do get a bunch of small ones to support them for whatever reason.

Isn't that how we would want the UN to act if another country, say, France, was threatening to attack a different country?



Thanks for impunging my beliefs, I appreciate that.

I know I am relatively young compared to some who write on this board. I accept the fact that many would consider me to be idealistic, and I realize that there is a good chance that my opinions will change along the course of my life. But, sir, do not assume that I have not done countless hours of research on this subject, for my own personal understanding, and that I allow others to make my decisions for me, for that would be a gross mistake on your part.

I am rather insulted by your cavalier dismissing of my ability to make my mind up for myself just because I do not agree with your position. I think you will find that I in no way treat you, or anyone, that way, despite the fact I do not agree with you.

Cycloptichorn

Foreign policy damages nation, group says

From Paul Courson
CNN
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 3:16 PM EDT (1916 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration's foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has been a "disaster," and President Bush should not be re-elected, a group of former diplomats and military leaders say in a newly released statement.
The group, called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, held a news conference Wednesday to explain why its members feel "the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy," and underscore that they believe their concerns are bipartisan.
A statement from the group notes its more than two dozen members include Democrats and Republicans who have "served every president since Harry S. Truman."
They contend Bush's foreign policy has failed at "preserving national security and providing world leadership."
Members expressing their opposition in the statement are former senior diplomatic, national security and military officials.
In opening remarks, spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said international respect for the United States is now "crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it."
Oakley was an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Clinton administration.
Charles Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said the Bush administration has yet to articulate how it plans to depart from Iraq, and said the situation is "complicated by insults to our allies, the indifference to the views of partners in the region, and the general disdain for the United Nations and international organizations that the administration still finds difficult to conceal."
Freeman, a career diplomat, served both Republican and Democratic administrations.
At a Wednesday news conference, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher rejected the notion the United States has acted without consulting its allies.
"It's not true. We went to the United Nations on Iraq. We went to the United Nations on terrorism and 9/11. We've had four unanimous U.N. resolutions since the end of the war," he responded.
Although the group expressed alarm about the sidetracked Middle East "road map to peace" between Palestinians and Israelis, it was the U.S. handling of Iraq that helped crystallize the group's concern.
Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former U.S. Air Force chief of staff who had endorsed the Bush 2000 campaign, Wednesday said of Bush's Iraq policy, "Because of the Pollyannish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there that ... bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. And so you see here, unfolding in front of us, a terrible disaster."
McPeak headed the Air Force during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
The group acknowledged it takes a partisan stand in opposing Bush, but, as member William Harrop put it, "When there is one prominent rival to President Bush in this election, obviously we think Senator Kerry should be elected, but we are not here to speak for him. We are here to say there must be a change."
Harrop, a career diplomat who retired in 1994 after 40 years of foreign service, held ambassadorships to Guinea, Kenya and the Seychelles, Zaire, and Israel.

This is worth repeating.
*******************
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration's foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has been a "disaster," and President Bush should not be re-elected, a group of former diplomats and military leaders say in a newly released statement.

Diplomats, military leaders, politicos from both "aisles" and even his own father advised against the administrations foreign policy before - they (except word from his father) are against after. Gee, hmmmmm - oh well!

A whole bunch of military leaders, diplomats, etc... ad nauseum have come out against Kerry as well. Who cares?

It is up to us, not them to decide who our next president will be. Thank Buddha for that!

Against Kerry's foreign policy? whoa, there, kimosabe. Show us the names of the diplomats and top military commanders against Kerry's foreign policy. Flat statements just don't cut it here.

As they say "not for nothing" but isn't a major precept of religion honesty. Bush must have missed that one. George will never get to heaven.

I am sure that if Kerry could settle for a single version of his foreign policy, there would be. I was referring to his candidacy.

McG's quote, "A whole bunch of military leaders, diplomats, etc... ad nauseum have come out against Kerry as well. Who cares?" Please name these "whole bunch of military leaders, diplomats, etc...."

BTW, WE CARE!

McG only provides evidence for what he writes if you really twist his arm.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, That may be considered torture by most of us, and we also do not apply Bush's definition of torture on A2K. I think human right's organizations found 37 deaths at US prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not torture according to Bush; since we follow US laws, and we are a country of laws.

.C.I.
Laws as defined by Bush and Ashford.

au, I'm just waiting patiently for the international community to bring Bush and his criminals to justice for crimes against humanity. Do you think it'll ever happen?

remember, Bush vetoed the World Court - now, the rest of the story...........

Come on, Finn. Look at the numbers. When one country alone is providing more troops (by FAR) than all the rest of the countries COMBINED, I think "Coalition of the willing" could be considered a bit misleading.

Don't let your loyalty to the administration blind you to common sense.

"Coalition of the willing" goes with Bush's other newly coined oxymorons - like "Clean Air" and "Healthy Forest" act. The majority of the willing got their collective arms twisted, after one or two breaks, they joined. NO TORTURE HERE

What do the numbers mean? Could it mean that we have the largest army? That our allies depend on our military to protect them and therefore do not need a large army so they don't have the resources to send? On a different thread, it has been demonstrated that NATO has failed to keep the peace in afghanistan because they lack the troops... why is that? why is it that our allies can afford to keep a small army?

Turn it around, McG.

If we were being accused/attacked/whatever by Germany, France, and 30 small countries with no real might, and they consistently called themselves a 'coalition of justice,' you would laugh and ridicule them for pretending to have major world support for their cause, and claiming that over and over again.

Cycloptichorn