President Bush today in a press conference repeated Donald Rumsfeld’s claim of last week that the coalition fighting the current Gulf War is larger than the one we had in 1991 … “in terms of the number of nations supporting us,” was the exact quotation I think. He even went on to talk about meeting with generals of the other nations that were standing side-by-side with us.
To me this seems, at best, deliberately misleading, and at worst clear lie. Still, there must be a rationale behind this statement. I’d be very interested in hearing it. I’d also like to hear the reaction of people who support the president and the war. Do you feel ashamed by this claim, the same way Clinton supporters did when he tried to explain how the sex he had wasn’t really sex?
I’m assuming Greg’s point was that Eritrea’s support doesn’t mean much, and neither does that of even “real” countries such as Korea or Netherlands or Spain that won’t send any troops. In fact I found it more than a little unseemly for Spain to be banging the drums of war right alongside the U.S. and U.K. and then announce that of course it would be sending 35 medics or social workers but, naturalamente, no actual soldiers. That’s a new breed of chickenhawk, and a pretty craven move by Aznar, I’d say – suck up to the Atlantic Alliance in hopes of getting U.S./U.K. aid/trade and the cachet of being a big time player with them by supporting a (domestically unpopular) war, then hedge your bets (and prevent your ouster by the Spanish electorate) by making clear that Spain is not going to actually pay any price in blood for its gung-ho stance. Talk about triangulation, and the same applies to a number of other “coalition” members. At least the Tony Blair is putting his life (well, of course, not his, he’s already rented the villa in Tuscany this summer, but he’s putting the lower middle class Brits’ lives, at least) where his mouth is.
Sorry, but the coalition count is totally bogus. Gulf War 1.0 had many more countries actually shooting bullets and dropping bombs - by my count, the USA, UK, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Qatar, Bahrain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Syria, Australia, Kuwait, Italy, and others all fired at least one shot in anger. And at least five or six were very substantially involved, with ground troops actually fighting shooting battles; the others at least provided air power.
Actual Allied combatants in this war come out to, by my count, three - USA, UK, and Australia.
I don’t see these as comparable. Clinton committed perjury. Bush spun his support to put it in the best light. Clinton was acting for his personal benefit. Bush is spinning for the the benefit of the nation and the world, as he sees it.
According to Condoleezza Rice, the coalition has about 50 members. So, it is numerically large.
From my POV Bush has given a somewhat bogus response to a bogus complaint. Why does it matter how big the coalition is? I am proud that he and the United States are doing the right thing for the world. The fact that we are doing it with limited support makes me all the more proud. Those countries and individuals who do not support the war should be ashamed. History will treat them the way it treats those who failed to act while Hitler was gaining power and committing atrocities.
In Gulf War I those other nations actually helped. Some nations really helped out in the fighting, some donated money, Saudi Arabia gave us a bunch of free oil.
In Dubya, Dubya II Shrub II has the US bribing other nations to stand on the sidelines and cheer us on.
Well, we agree on two items - they aren’t comparable, and that Bush is spinning. Why are they not comparable? Because Clinton’s “lie” wasn’t to garner support for a cause that will put millions of lives at risk.
Said the vigilante leader to the mob…
Or, should they be proud of having the courage of their convictions, something our POTUS is sometimes unable to do?
Let me get this right. We’re trying to install a democracy in Iraq to give a voice to the oppressed people. But we should be ashamed if the leader of a democracy reflects the will of their constituents?
Sorry, december, allow me to re-write without the pronouns.
Let me get this right. The US is trying to install a democracy in Iraq to give voice to the oppressed people. But those countries and individuals who do not support the war should be ashamed if their leader reflects the will of their constituents?
Which democracy does it allude to? Whichever democracy may fall under your description of “those countries and individuals who do not support the war”. For a complete list, cross reference an entire list of all democracies in the world and take away those that are part of the coalition of the willing.
AZCowboy Democracy as practised does not tend to be direct democracy. A government os elected for a set period of time. They then make decisions. They do not, as a rule, refer back to the electorate before the next election. If people disagree - they vote them out again. Interestingly i suslect more governments are voted out than voted in.
I recently read an article saying that Neville Chamberlain had overwhelming support in Britain for his agreement with Hitler to produce, “Peace in our time.” Nevertheless, history has treated Chamberlain poorly. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than following the will of the people.
I think the current situation with Iraq is analogous. Fortunately, the coalition will stop Saddam form acquiring weapons that would allow him to kill tens of millions. He has already killed one to two million. That’s more than enough.
Doing the right thing, morally, I would suggest far outstrips doing the will of the people.
If the will of the people for example (yes a tortured one but I am using it anyway) is that all people with blue eyes be locked away, supported by an overwhelming majority, do we do it? I sincerely hope not.
Democracy can all too easily become the tyranny of the majority
Except that it’s not a “bogus complaint”, it’s a statement first made by Donald Rumsfeld last week and since repeated by Dubya and Rice. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
You can see it as bogus–I doubt we could change your mind–but from my POV, it’s a ridiculous attempt at justification for this war by an administration that is losing whatever credibility it had.
UnwrittenNocturne, thanks for the lesson, but yes, I understand, I wasn’t trying to reference a pure democracy, but a democracy in the common sense of the word.
This stuff about “tyranny of the majority” is plenty accurate, but I’m not talking about (internal) majorities imposing their will on (internal) minorities. I’m talking about policy decisions, and in this particular case, foreign policy decisions.
And no, I’m not suggesting that a leader in a democracy must or should follow the will of their constituents. But I can’t find fault in a leader that chooses to represent the will of their constituents. And I hope you are not suggesting that the will of their constiuents is irrelevent.
As for the blue-eyed people example, what if our newly installed democracy in Iraq does exactly that? Will you support them? Or will you support a pre-emptive military strike?
december, the beauty of the Chamberlain example is that he was judged in the eyes of history. Folks like Chirac and Schroeder, not to mention Bush, will have the same privilege.
Assessing shame before the wisdom (or lack thereof) of their decisions becomes clear suggests that your foresight is more valid than theirs. While I have no doubt you believe that, I hope you will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree. But I won’t hold out hope.
And I don’t find the situation analogous at all. We’ve had threads on it, so I won’t go into detail. But your assertions that Saddam might kill tens of millions with WoMD is either wild speculation or hyperbole.