Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Exactly this "nearly 100% universal agreement" is my mayor point as well.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Exactly this "nearly 100% universal agreement" is my mayor point as well.

It's nowhere near the truth. Have a look at this Gallup Poll from 2003, asking people in several European Union countries about a possible war with Iraq:

Code:

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ?



Country                No    Only if sanctioned    Unilaterally by America

                                     by the U.N.            and its allies

Spain                 74%                    13%                    4%

France                60%                    27%                    7%

Luxembourg            59%                    34%                    5%

Portugal              53%                    29%                   10%

Germany               50%                    39%                    9%

Denmark               45%                    38%                   10%

Finland               44%                    37%                    6%

United Kingdom{+1}    41%                    39%                   10%

Ireland               39%                    50%                    8%

Netherlands           38%                    51%                    7%

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And I'm still waiting for you to show me at any time that the UN said that we could not (or should not) invade Iraq or passed any resolution of criticism or censure after we did.

And actually, I can point you to this statement United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan made about the American invasion of Iraq in September 2004:

Quote:

"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal."

source

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Revel writes

Quote:
So you meant lefty war critics way back in the Vietnam era rather than any war critics leading up to the invasion? Pitiful, foxy.

I think what's pitiful is that is all you got out of my post. Oh well.

I think its just ridiculous that you are trying to say George Bush who defied most of our allies and has continued to do what he wants and who calls himself the "decider" let past (or any) war critics plan how he was going to conduct his wars.

Perhaps you've forgotten how many of those allies sent troops and/or other support for the effort. Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations. And perhaps you think everybody else ought to tell the USA what it should do in its own interests. You probably even think the UN is a competent, upstanding, righteous organization that has the best interest of all its members at heart.

And some of us don't buy into either the selective memory that seems to be epidemic among liberals nor the fuzzy notions about who is and who is not friend to the USA.

You live in your own skewed reality of the world.

Unfortunately you are correct about the members of Congress at the time of the Iraq resolution, at the time bush was still enjoying his hey day after tragedy of 9/11.

But as for the coalition of the willing, <snort> it could have been more accurate to call it the coalition of the bribed and intimidated. Most of them it was nothing more than mere statements of support. A good deal of them have left.

Quote:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stated on March 18, 2003, "We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition. [1]"

Of the 30 nations that were stated as providing support for the U.S. war with Iraq, only 5 of them provided any military troops in the effort during the invasion [2]:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Poland: 200
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000

The Private Military Corporations contracted to the Loose Cannon Pentagon and State Department may provide a more international contribution (more foreign troops from more foreign countries) than government sources. It's hard to know with any certainty however, since they are un-monitored and un-accountable. What is certain is that the U.S. military cannot function without them. [3]

This is to be compared with the 300,000 troops the U.S. has committed to the effort. Therefore, excluding the UK, no other country is providing any significant military support, and any other forms of support from the "coalition" are not apparent. "The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War," reported the Washington Post on March 20, 2003. "But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts. ... The current operation in Iraq is almost entirely a U.S.-British campaign, with virtually no military contribution from other countries except Australia. 'It's a baldfaced lie to suggest that' the coalition for this war is greater than that for the 1991 war, said Ivo H. Daalder, a former Clinton administration official now at the Brookings Institution who supports the war against Iraq. 'Even our great allies Spain, Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops.'" [4]

What has not been openly stated by the Bush administration is the number of concessions that have been given to countries voicing support for the war. Multiple news stories have reported how the administration is providing billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars in "aid packages" to garner support for the war for countries like Turkey, Israel, and Jordan [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has compiled an analysis of 34 nations cited in press reports as supporters of the U.S. position on Iraq, titled "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?" The IPS study finds that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery." According to IPS Middle East analyst Phyllis Bennis, "It's hardly a new phenomenon for the U.S. to use bribes and threats to get its way in the UN. What's new this time around is the breathtaking scale of those pressures -- because this time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and every government leaning Washington's way faces massive opposition at home."[11]

Some nations included in the "coalition of the willing," such as Japan, merely offered statements of support for U.S. actions (and did not send any troops at all until well after collapse of the Iraqi military). These statements are certainly worth noting, but they fall far short of the billions of dollars in funding and other resources that these same nations provided during the first war in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, at least one of the nations on the Bush administration's list seems to have been included without its knowledge or consent. According to the New Zealand Herald, "Solomon Islands Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakeza yesterday said 'thanks but no thanks' after hearing his nation had been shanghaied into the US-led Coalition of the Willing."[12]

source

yea, universal support. Laughing

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I didn't make up any numbers since I didn't cite any numbers.

You didn't? And what was that bit were you said that there was "nearly 100% universal agreement"? I suppose that wasn't a number, and if it was, you didn't make it up?This bit right here, I mean:

Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.

Foxfyre wrote:
And I'm still waiting for you to show me at any time that the UN said that we could not (or should not) invade Iraq or passed any resolution of criticism or censure after we did.

This seems to be too difficult for you to understand, so I'll explain it to you one more time: No country has a UN mandate, unless the UN Security Council issues one. The absence of a resolution of criticism doesn't mean a thing - especially as the United States have veto power and wouldn't allow any such resolution to pass!

Likewise, there was never a UN resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Are you saying that the Soviet invasion was completely okay and that the USSR had a UN mandate, because no resolution of criticism was passed? Stop being ridiculous.

Foxfyre wrote:
I can't help it if most of the Euroweenies are willing to give silent assent while letting others get it done without soiling their own hands or risking anything themselves.

Millions of "Euroweenies" took to the streets to demonstrate against the American invasion. A vast majority of the population of nearly every European country was opposed to the war. Claiming that this constitutes "silent assent" is just more rewriting of history.

Foxfyre wrote:
Especially those like France and Germany who were benefitting monetarily from having Saddam in power. (And no I don't intend to debate that again.)

Because you can't discuss it without having pointed out that American companies were profiting from the oil-for-food programme as well, or that the US had been arming Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait, or that the American government was planning to finance the war and the reconstruction (with reconstruction deal handed out solely to American companies) with the oil revenues from Iraq.

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact that you have an all or nothing attitude about these things and seem to have no ability to see any position between extremes does not make your point of view correct nor does it make mine wrong.

Yes, it makes you wrong. It makes you a liar when you say that there was "nearly 100% universal agreement" when there clearly wasn't. I don't have an "all or nothing" attitude, but I despise the rewriting of history a mere 4 years after those events took place.

Just as we wouldn't have been able to get a resolution to pass because Russia and France would have vetoed it. It's a 2 way street in the UN regarding vetos.

Europeans protested... whoop-de-doo. With the unemployment as bad as it is there they have nothing else to do.

The people that mattered were mostly in agreement. That would be heads of state, intelligence agencies, military advisers. The general population really doesn't know much. They have opinions based on feelings. Who gives a ****? The average person is an idiot and I sympathize with any country that allows the average citizen decide that countries foreign policy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Unfortunately you are correct about the members of Congress at the time of the Iraq resolution, at the time bush was still enjoying his hey day after tragedy of 9/11.

Hmm, really?

The Senate, but 'Virtually All' members of the House?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just as we wouldn't have been able to get a resolution to pass because Russia and France would have vetoed it. It's a 2 way street in the UN regarding vetos.

Europeans protested... whoop-de-doo. With the unemployment as bad as it is there they have nothing else to do.

Is that so? Well, McGentrix, tell me a bit about the unemployment situation in the European countries in 2002/2003 and how this had any ramification on the anti-war demonstrations. And maybe you could talk a little bit about the unemployment situation in Australia as well, as about 70 percent of Australians also opposed the war. Lots of unemployed there, too? Tell me, McGentrix, did a lot of people in the Appalachians take to the streets to protest? Last thing I've heard was that unemployment numbers there a quite a bit higher than in Europe.

McGentrix wrote:

The people that mattered were mostly in agreement.

Sure. Let me help you make a list of "people that mattered": Morocco didn't offer any military assistance, but they offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines in Iraq. Uzbekistan joined the Coalition. Turkey, regrettably, didn't, even though the United States offered a whopping $26 billion for the right of having US troops based there. Well, tough luck. Albania joined, however, as did Colombia (Colombia really matters. Best friend of the United States). El Salvador joined, too. So did Nicaragua and Macedonia.

McGentrix wrote:

That would be heads of state,

The heads of state of what, exactly? Please don't tell me that Palau matters more than China, Russia or India.

McGentrix wrote:

intelligence agencies,

Uh, like, the ones that warned the CIA against using information from untrustworthy sources (which ended up in Powell's UN presentation, nevertheless)? Sure. They were in agreement. That it was a really bad idea to go into Iraq, that is.

McGentrix wrote:

military advisers.

And that would probably be the hand picked lot that thought it was just dandy to go into Iraq with insufficient troops, based on shaky information, without any post-war planning at all and on the assumption that the revenues from Iraqi oil would be paying for everything, right?

McGentrix wrote:

The general population really doesn't know much.

Very true. And it's good to see you as a representative of the general population demonstrate this here.

McGentrix wrote:

They have opinions based on feelings.

... like, "somebody has to pay for 9/11", for example? Yes. Definitely.

McGentrix wrote:

Who gives a ****?

Certainly not you.

McGentrix wrote:

The average person is an idiot and I sympathize with any country that allows the average citizen decide that countries foreign policy.

My point exactly. It's a pity it has come that for with the United States, really.

0 Replies

That's cute OE. Too bad you don't put the same effort into actually saying something.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just as we wouldn't have been able to get a resolution to pass because Russia and France would have vetoed it. It's a 2 way street in the UN regarding vetos.

Of course, you completely fail to mention that the United States would have likely gotten a UN mandate to go into Iraq had there been a real reason to do so, or if Iraq had posed a threat to the United States, like the Bush administration told everyone:

Quote:

He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies.

Apparently, nobody seemed to believe those claims.

Now feel free to compare that with the situation in Afghanistan: On December 20, 2001, the UN issued Resolution 1386, which authorized the deployment of an International Security Force For Afghanistan for six months.

Interesting, isn't it? A real threat on the one hand, cooked up and fabricated intelligence on the other hand - and it yielded the respective results. Apparently, just because you have been fooled by your government doesn't mean the same is true for the rest of the world.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's cute OE. Too bad you don't put the same effort into actually saying something.

I'm saying something. Pull your fingers out of your ears and stop singing "la-la-la" and you might be able to hear it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
So, maybe I missed it, did he bend to the pressure or didn't he?

0 Replies

I have nothing further to add to the "legality" debate. The issue comes down to a dispute between those who argue that no action is ever permissable without an explicit enabling resolution from the Security Council detailing in explicit terms what can be done, and those who argue that sovereign nations retain the right to act in their self-defense and interest, broadly defined. There is no reconciling these disparate points of view - they rest on how one interprets the UN Charter and how one imagines the world really works.

A couple of factual matters also need to be cleared up. The principal supplier of military hardware to Saddam after he was cut off from Soviet aid was France, not the United States. The huge caches of crew served weapons, from rockets to RPGs, mortars and artillery rounds were mostly of very recent French manufacture. There was a plethora of other materials as well, mostly acquired on the international arms market.

Finally, It should be remembered that prior to our intervention the momentum of European political support for the removal of all economic sanctions against Saddam's regime was strong and growing. Those who now assert that the continued sanctions regime would have effectively contained Saddam and perhaps have safely ended his tyranny should recall that they in fact were advocating his complete restoration to legitimacy and economic power.

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

Yes, it makes you wrong. It makes you a liar when you say that there was "nearly 100% universal agreement" when there clearly wasn't. I don't have an "all or nothing" attitude, but I despise the rewriting of history a mere 4 years after those events took place.

See? This is what drives me crazy about you. You take something out of context, remove any qualifiers, and then present it with an altered meaning so that you can attack it. I did not say one single lie. And I suggest you go back and read what I wrote VERY carefully before you presume to call somebody a liar. And despite your repetitive demands for retractions, I suppose it would be too much to expect one from you.

I'll even give you a hint as to what to look for. Saying that all those people were in agreement with the REASONS we ultimately invaded Iraq is not at all the same thing as saying they were in agreement with the invasion. But such subtleties apparently are difficult for the liberal mind to discern.

0 Replies

Quote:

But such subtleties apparently are difficult for the liberal mind to discern.

We discern them, and file them under the 'bullsh*t hair-splitting' that so many of your posts drop into; especially when you try and correct your earlier mistakes while pretending you never made a mistake in the first place.

Nothing if not predictable

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I have nothing further to add to the "legality" debate. The issue comes down to a dispute between those who argue that no action is ever permissable without an explicit enabling resolution from the Security Council detailing in explicit terms what can be done, and those who argue that sovereign nations retain the right to act in their self-defense and interest, broadly defined.

Maybe. But there is also the argument about what constitutes self-defense and interest, and how "broadly" they can be defined before they seriously encroach on the rights of other nations to defend themselves and/or to remain sovereign. You summarize the argument in a way that works well for a typical liberal/conservative smackdown. Unfortunately, that's not all there is to it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
But such subtleties apparently are difficult for the liberal mind to discern.

We discern them, and file them under the 'bullsh*t hair-splitting' that so many of your posts drop into; especially when you try and correct your earlier mistakes while pretending you never made a mistake in the first place.

Nothing if not predictable

Cycloptichorn

About as predictable as little dogs rushing in all brave and cocky and pretending they're really being smart and profound and important when they can pile in after the big dogs have their say.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Maybe. But there is also the argument about what constitutes self-defense and interest, and how "broadly" they can be defined before they seriously encroach on the rights of other nations to defend themselves and/or to remain sovereign. You summarize the argument in a way that works well for a typical liberal/conservative smackdown. Unfortunately, that's not all there is to it.

I'm not sure just what else there might be to it. The argument offered here for the supposed "illegality" of the US/UK actions in Iraq rests on a very strict constructionist interpretation of the UN's role and authority.

It is interesting to note that for five decades virtually all of the major nations in the world, from Russia, to France, the UK and many, many others have repeatedly acted unilaterally or in concert with a few others to protect their interests without any reference to the Security Council whatever. Anglo French military actions to preserve their disintegrating empires continued for decades after the signing of the UN Charter. The Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt and Suez in 1956 involved no UN authorization. old europe has noted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - and as well the absence of any UN resolution condemning it. The repeated French military interventions in its Francophone former colonies in Africa (some very recent) were all done unilaterally and without UN authorization. The Argentine seizure of the Malvinas and the british retaliation were both done outside UN mandates.

In short the behavior of the major nations of the world amply demonstrates that the narrow constructionist interpretation of the UN Charter, as it relates to the rights of sovereign nations, is not widely accepted among nations. More to the point it is not enforced, and, as a supposed principle of international law, offers no protection to anyone. In all of this it clearly fails to meet the practical test for what actually constitutes "law" among nations.

True enough the idealized conceptions of many serious people would have us suppose otherwise. However they are not a meaningful basis for dealing with real, serious problems. They are fantasies.

0 Replies

Talk about dwelling in fantasies, has any of the current war supporters given any thought to the next move if this "last ditch" effort does not succeed? What do we do if the so called benchmarks aren't met? How long do we stay in Iraq in such force, until we invade Iran? If we cut and run to invade Iran how is that any better than just merely cutting and running because you realize there is nothing you can do to make anything any better? You still abandon Iraq if you invade Iran than if you merely return home.

0 Replies

Even in recent history, there was no UN authority for Clinton bombing Iraq and the Sudan. There was no UN authority for us invading Somalia. Arbitrary rules and moral imperatives have generally been devleoped and implemented well outside UN jurisdiction.

We might try making the UN the authority however and its a pretty safe bet that no signatories who meant it would ever do anything. Of course that would leave those who don't go by anybody's rules free to commit whatever mayhem they chose whenever they chose to commit it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OE writes

Quote:
Yes, it makes you wrong. It makes you a liar when you say that there was "nearly 100% universal agreement" when there clearly wasn't. I don't have an "all or nothing" attitude, but I despise the rewriting of history a mere 4 years after those events took place.

See? This is what drives me crazy about you. You take something out of context, remove any qualifiers, and then present it with an altered meaning so that you can attack it. I did not say one single lie. And I suggest you go back and read what I wrote VERY carefully before you presume to call somebody a liar. And despite your repetitive demands for retractions, I suppose it would be too much to expect one from you.

I'll even give you a hint as to what to look for. Saying that all those people were in agreement with the REASONS we ultimately invaded Iraq is not at all the same thing as saying they were in agreement with the invasion. But such subtleties apparently are difficult for the liberal mind to discern.

Of course you know that it is nearly impossible to talk about a subject or an argument you have made without at least paraphrasing it. Many posters don't seem to have a problem with this. You, in turn, have complained so many times that I misquoted you or changed the meaning of what you actually said (even when that clearly wasn't the case) that your complaints begin to sound hollow.

If you think that I missed the point of your argument, you can easily point that out without the permanent complaints about taking something out of context.

Let's go back to your statement (I'll provide it again so anybody can read what you have actually written and does not have to rely on what I'm saying you wrote):

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.

You think I misrepresented your point, so I will have to ask you to clarify for me: What reasons exactly do you think were there that "there was nearly 100% universal agreement on"?

What were the reasons that "virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations" agreed upon?

(And again, to nobody in particular, please read the actual quote of what Foxfyre actually wrote as the relevant basis for my questions.)

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know