Sure. Reasonable people may disagree.
Airblairxxx, in your cite I would call Rumsfeld’s statement a “somewhat bogus response.” He was responding to media characterization of the war as a unilateral action. That media characterization is what I would call a bogus complaint. First of all, the war is not literally unilateral, since we have allies. More importantly, the truly vital question is whether liberating Iraq by force is the right thing to do.
Sigh . . . that gets to the crux of the matter.
I don’t object to Saddam going bye-bye; I know what he is. And I think we’re going to win this war, and I want us to, the sooner the better.
No, it’s how we got ourselves into this position that I object to.
It’s about how we’re isolating ourselves diplomatically for a long time to come.
How we’re squandering the lives of our servicemen who signed up to defend our country, not to attack others. How the goodwill the world showed us after 9/11 has evaporated into a miasma of mistrust and fear.
How we’re setting back the cause of democracy in the middle east at least 50 years. See Collounsbury’s thread here in Great Debates, if you’ve been sleeping too well lately.
And mostly, I object to how we’re kidding ourselves if we think this will make us safer from terrorism on the 9/11 scale. Especially when you consider that only 9/11 could have made an operation like this politically viable.
But as you said, “Reasonable people may disagree.”
Enough of the hijack. I need a drink.
december wrote: “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.”
Ah… The old “Hitler” comparison again…
I guess then, we should judge the good old USA pretty harshly then, since not only did they ignore Hitler’s rise to power, they did not join WW II until 1941, years AFTER the rest of the world had been actively fighting Hitler’s armies.
Yes, it’s always nice to say what should have been done in hindsight, isn’t it. We SHOULD have eliminated Hitler’s mother. Then there would have been no problem at all.
A “preventative war” is a very dangerous precedent to be setting, december
BTW, there’s a creepy looking guy in my building that I think might pose a threat sometime in the future. Could you please come over tomorrow and whack him for me? Thanks.
I actually agree with this POV. This is a position held by many of us Jews.
True, but it may turn out well. The US and NATO conducted a preventive war in the former Yugoslavia that finally helped end the mass slaughter there. In a sense, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a preventive war. John F. Kennedy embargoed Cuba. An embargo is an act of war. That turned out well, in that nuclear-tipped missiles were kept out of Cuba.
Just a quick question…
Does the fact that many of our supporters have experience living under the iron fist of an oppressive regime - the USSR, specifically - matter at all those opposed to the war? To me, the support of Albania, for example - given what Albania has been through during the Cold War - should be a mark in Bush’s favor. The support of such nations, whose people have walked a mile in the Iraqis’ shoes, so to speak, is about as close to tacit approval by the oppressed as we’re going to get. I find it strange, and a little sad, that people treat those nations with scorn and mocking.
Jeff
ElJeffe, didn’t the Russians live under the iron fist of the oppressive regime of the USSR? IIRC, public opposition for the war is over 90% there.
I think I followed your point, but wouldn’t we need to know what (else) Albania got out of the deal? Any idea how the people feel, versus the official government position? Do we have the right to be skeptical if it was in exchange for material value?
And who is treating those nations with scorn and mocking?
This time.
If this becomes policy, to fight preventative wars, sooner or later there is going to be an almighty screw-up.
I am also not entirely excited about you use of “may” either. Do you entertain the possibility that all hell might break lose, then? If so, is it really worth risking that?
It truly bothers me that Bush and Rumsfeld are not really being square when they talk about the countries in the coalition. Much of the alliance is virtually meaningless. Do we really need another submarine from Denmark? Do we need an additional 20 soldiers from one of the countries on the coalition list? This massive coalition is mostly symbolic.
If the Administration is so certain that what we are doing is right, then why does he have to stretch the truth and mislead?
More updates on the Coalition
U.S. accidentally includes Solevnia in the Coalition and even extends some of the money they’re spreading around in return for… sending warm fuzzies
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/nm/20030328/od_nm/iraq_usa_slovenia_dc
Solomon Islands objects to being listed
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300727&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
Our new good buddy Uzbekistan cracks down on its free press. No word if there will be any complaint from the U.S. (holding my breath!)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/032403.htm
Still a ferverent supporter, however, is Palau, which will certainly prove a great boon in offering tourist vacations against Iraq to the extreme!
Ethiopia and Eritrea also are happy to continue to support us with their contribution of angry demands that we resolve their border dispute and send lots of money as soon as possible.
Yes, it’s a broad and deeply meaningful Coalition we’ve ammased, truly a triumph of diplomacy.
Hey, don’t forget Tonga. They just joined up, too.
As has already been said, the GWI coalition had two or three dozen nations actually contributing troops, and a number of others contributing money.
The GWII “coalition of the willing” is mostly a coalition of countries willing to stand on the sidelines and occasionally say, “Rah rah, USA,” before going back to whatever they were doing.
By those standards, the CotW in GWI would have consisted of about 150 nations, maybe more.
They just lie for no apparent reason sometimes. And this is the crew that made a big deal about how Al Gore allegedly claimed to have invented the Internet. Good thing we’ve restored integrity to the White House. :rolleyes: