Yep you said it all. Some other poor country is next soon. They probably have more plausible explanations I suppose.
Still if one compares Bosnia to Iraq for example... both were just causes... but the American public bitched a lot about Bosnia and Kosovo. I wouldn't have minded if a UN force (US led possibly) had ousted Saddam either. Its the pre-emptive bullshit that is scary. It creates a vigilante mentality... I'd rather see a strong UN based "policework".Well, in a situation where there is no police force, vigilantes are all there is. That’s just reality.
A sizable minority of Americans bitched about both wars, yes. ANd both were done of course without UN approval.
Just recently, Clinton was cheered by Kosovars, something that probably irritated people like Chomsky and Cockburn to no end. I would be willing to bet that in five years Bush will be cheered in Iraq.
Bosnia and Kosovo did fall under NATO if I am not mistaken and the UN thou not rubberstamping those actions were approving of them. Consensus, truly multilateral and diplomacy are the key words… words Bush still needs to learn.
Bush still got over 40 countries to support the war. He knows something about diplomacy.
A not so minor nit, Clinton was cheered by Kosovo Albanians. Serbians, on the other hand, are not particularily enamored with the fellow.
Thanks for the correction.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush has to steer clear of Sunni areas but gets welcomed as a hero in Shiite and Kurd areas.
…and snubbed by 300 others, even with promises of handouts and kickbacks. What, you thought the “Coalition of the willing” joined out of the altruistic goodness of their hearts?
Only if by “something” you mean “very little.” :rolleyes:
There aren’t even 300 countries dude.
How many did Clinton get to support Kosovo? How about Haiti? Panama? Grenada?
This war was a lot more multilateral than many we’ve waged.
If “this war was a lot more multilateral than many” you have waged then I would suggest that says more about the American foreign policy than perhaps you intended ** adaher **!
What does it say? That we tend to go it alone? And why is that bad? You act as if the primary criteria to judge an action is by how many support it.
There are about 193 countries in the world, I suspect the 300 comment was a hyperbole. The coalition consisted essentially of two states before slowly growing by acquisition.
The result of over two months of wheedling, coercing, bribing, and persuading was convincing four countries to contribute troops to the Iraq war. Never mind the UN/Security Council fiasco.
Some NATO countries were conspicuously absent from the coalition. Most countries who did “support” the Bush drive appeared to be either coerced (this is where dishing out a fortune in foreign aid gets useful), or “ass-lickers” like Italy and Spain (at the most you could argue that Berlusconi and Aznar – acting in explicit opposition to the wishes of their respective populations-- hoped to reap some sort of benefit down the line at the relatively low cost of saying “yes” to Bush while committing little or nothing).
But it’s a good thing that support was forthcoming from Eritrea, the Republic of Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Honduras, Iceland, and similar giants. Such countries are especially relevant on the world stage, particularly with their military/economic might and influence.
The Coalition basically consisted of the US, (bulk of troops), UK (some 45,000 troops), with Australia tagged on (2,000 troops) and Poland dangling loosely behind (200 troops and a ship). Other members of this coalition were added laboriously step by step, in many cases contributing only “moral support” and generally not representing a consensus. Certainly there was no pro-war consensus at the United Nations, which was conveniently circumvented when it was clear Bush & co.'s bluster wouldn’t work on the occasion. Many nations, although officially giving their “commitment” provided nothing substantial. I don’t think any nation outside the big two matched the contributions originally made in the first Gulf War.
And Canada and Mexico, the two close allies and important neighbours of the US, refused to have anything to do with the exercise, along with the majority of the world’s states.
It’s possible there may have been other wars similarly lacking in multilateral support – if so state them, Adaher. I would be hard-pressed to think of another war --especially one lacking an imminent threat as justification-- the approach of which was botched so poorly, and for which so little support existed. By comparison, the (failed) attempt to oust Milosevich was a wonder of unison.
Kosovo was a NATO operation that would have been a UN job had the Rooskies not objected. Can’t get much more multilateral than that.
To find something like that, you have to go back to the Spanish-American War, which, like the Iraq War, was started mostly on false pretenses, and represented unilateral U.S. aggression. Both wars were over quickly, and in both cases, some of those who had been “liberated” weren’t too thrilled about it:
(From this site.)
This is one of the reasons some have labeled the Bush Administration “the worst since McKinley’s.”
But the point still stands. Panama and Grenada were actually 100% unilateral. No UN approval, not even an attempt, and not even any British support.
Seems that you object more to WHO was in the coalition than the fact it was a coalition. The simple fact of life in the world is that even “multilateral” operations involve the US providing the vast majority of the power. The only purpose of getting other nations on board is for diplomatic cover. It doesn’t matter one whit whether Canada contributed troops, or France, or Germany, because nothing they provided would have had a substantial effect on the war anyway.
Multilateralism is purely optional. It is not a requirement for action.
And the Chinese. Regardless, no UNSC resolution authorized the use of force against Serbia.
You know how it is Brutus, US presidents don’t like to go to the UNSC when they know they’ll get vetoed.
And unfortunately, NATO couldn’t make itself available as Plan B for Iraq. Who’d have thought . . .
Fwiw, if you folks are content to base collective international morality on the UNSC, then the lunatics really have taken over the asylum; the veto system means the only morality that sees actual intervention is white, western, Christian, capitalist-consumer, self-serving first world morality – and if that’s the bench mark or precedent by which to determine what’s action is right and just, God help us all.
Honest Q: When was the UN last permitted do anything that didn’t further the interests of the white, Christian, Capitalist, first-world west - all the UN does is provide a morality comfort blanket for self-serving western politicians who use it to placate easily impressed domestic voters ?
bolding mine.
Let me just tell you that Iceland was added to the list without the knolledge of the Icelandic government.
How is that for a coalition of the WILLING?
It created an outrage there, with 90% of the population opposing this phony war.
In the end the Icelandic government was coerced into giving their support, by threats of evacuating the NATO base and leaving the country defenceless. (Yes Iceland has no army, only police)
You say it as if it were a bad thing. But here I sit, waiting for disks to mount, so lets break it down:
White: Well, that’s just accident of birth, isn’t it? Or are you alledging some sort of neo-Nazi conspiracy at work here? Anyhow, Japan is certainly a member in good standing of the Capitalist Club, and they aren’t too white. (Except in that kabuki theater stuff)
Christian: The citizens of the Western states may be Christian, but you will note that the states themselves are not ‘Christian Republic of Germany’, or any such rot. A key factor.
Capitalist: The economic system of choice, among discerning nations.
First-world West: The above and more led to that.
The UN has been, and will forever be, the Security Council, and a bunch of other countries that show up for the coffee and donuts.
Should read:
First-world West: Some of the above, and more, led to that.
Maybe you’d like to re-think this one again, and amend it to “First-world West: One of the above, and more, led to that.” Any claim that being white or Christian is a necessary precondition to prosperity is likely to start quite a little flame war.