Firstly, remind me again what your point was, because I thought we were discussing it. Secondly, are these two countries, these two small exceptions, the “many” more unilateral wars you alluded to earlier? Thirdly, let’s take a closer look at an example. The US had the backing of six other Carribean nations when it invaded Grenada, an island in the immediate vicinity of those concerned (including the US!), just six days after a bloody coup from a Marxist dictator, to be seen as part of the lengthier Cuban conflict, and with the further reason of a thousand American students present on the island. Rather more cause right there than was reasonably provided for Iraq, and I think most involved woulf agree that the US can’t be criticized for taking action in Grenada. The Iraq situation is quite different.
No, I object because it was a highly dubious coalition. I particularly appreciate the input provided on Iceland. In Spain and Italy, among other members of “the willing”, opposition against the war or involvement in the war ran extremely high – 90% or higher. Not a terribly good day for democracy.
You see to be missing my point. This isn’t a matter of the make-up of the invading forces, rather it’s about the level of international support provided. And how difficult it was getting even that questionable level of support from all but a very few states. Support that the US’s closest neighbours and allies flatly refused, so poorly justified was the case.
This is short-sighted falsehood. Multilateralism is very simply the best way to interact with the rest of the world. Unilateralism is simply going to lead to resentment and people or countries doing something about that resentment, in manners acceptable or not.
‘White’ is what I was looking to omit. Christianity has played a key role in Western civilization (more so in the past), and I certainly wouldn’t want to leave it out.
But however interesting the sub-topic, I’ll end my part in the hijack.
Hell, the UN has served the empire very well. But then again, it was designed in the first place to do just that.
I think my point was that the UN is used to impose a particular partisan and self-serving agenda (White, Christian, Capitalist, yada) on the rest – make that the overwhelming majority – of the world.
Is that a bad thing ? Not if your only interest is the interest of the US
Is it moral, ethical, decent, etc. ? Of course not, but the voters don’t know that
Problem arises (for me) when the UN is then used (as per Iraq) as the moral arbiter e.g. a Resolution would have made the war legit – nope, it just means the interests of the five permanent member coincided or deals were achievable.
I can’t beleive people still defend the “coalition” of the willing. If ever there was a more pathetic attempt at putting some legitimacy buying off small nations. Bush kept repeating the 30 countries with us… screw western europe and the rest of the western hemisphere and Asia. US internal consumption of BS only.
Please Adaher do yourself a service and don’t claim it was a real coalition at all.
I’d have to say this statement is both correct and incorrect at the same time. True, the US invariable provides the majority of the troops in most conficts we participate in fully. True, the US military is usually most decisive factor in most conficts we fully participate in post WWII.
However this leaves out the main reason for having a true and powerful colitian (a la GW I)…money. True, the US can and has done it alone militarily. We HAVE the most powerful military force in the world, bar none. However, we are presently also footing the majority of the bill monetarily for this recent conflict, and will continue to do so in the near future. Because we are pretty much footing the whole bill (less what Britian is contributing), our cupboard is pretty bare at home now. If something else comes up and we NEED those troops and toys, well, we won’t have them. In addition, wars cost ungodly amounts of money. We can’t afford easily to have another conflict, reguardless of how worthy it will be. Another conflict will push our economy over the edge IMO…mostly because we tried to do this alone without the backing we should have tried to get before trying such an adventure.
Contrast that with the first gulf war where we had a powerful colitian of countries FULLY supporting us and helping defray the costs and you kind of get the point (I remember especially Japan and Saudi contributing vast sums of money to us), which is this ‘colitian’ that Bush put together is nothing more than a fig leaf, with only Britian fully backing us up as well as they can.
from Rashak Mani
I can’t say I often agree with Rashak Mani (read almost never), but I have to agree that this whole colitian thing is really very weak and the supporters of the administration would be better served to basically just drop it completely and go with their arguments that it was something worth doing alone (I disagree, but some feel it WAS worth doing for its own sake) with only Britian’s help and leave it at that.
As to the OP about Chaney…well, I’ll give him the benifit of the doubt and say that he may very well BE worried about WMD being used against the American people. Of course, he probably IS using that to make political hay also…he’s a politician for gods sake. Are his lips moving? Well, if so, he’s bound to be exagerating if not outright lieing about something then. Same goes for the rest of that pack of thieves on both sides of the political fence…
Sure there’s a coalition, it’s the one opposed to action by the US on the US timescale and outside of a new UN Resolution. Actually, the real coalition is pretty much the UN - unless we’re referring to the post-war ‘Coalition of the Drilling’.
However much it may burn your ass to admit it, the war in Iraq was not a ‘unilateral’ action by any meaning of the word. There was, and is, a coalition, and GW is correct to state this fact.
During the First Gulf war 34 countries provided troops and pretty much the entire world supported it. Other countries provided 26% of the troops and the entire cost of the war was paid by other countries with two thirds of the total being paid by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
In this war the USA has provided pretty much the totality of the troops and the money with the UK providing a token number of troops. The so-called “coalition of the willing” is simply a list of countries who, after some arm twisting by the USA, said they would not express opposition. Some support! The “coalition of the willing” is a joke.
Bush asserted 35 countries were “giving crucial support”. When reporters questioned the figure Fleischer said “The President was working off a list that included countries that refuse to be named publicly but are providing intelligence support”. That’s just pathetic. If someone in this board used the argument that “I have received many private emails of support from other posters even if everybody is against me in public”, he would be laughed at. It seems President Bush has no shame.
Read xtisme above (even thou he almost never agrees with me :dubious: ) and sailor below. Its not unilateral by definition… but its quasi unilateral by all others. If you still think its a REAL coalition please do enlighthen me. One would imagine that doing something major as neglecting national sovereignty would require more support.
In a real coalition, combat troops would have been financed by their native countries. Didn’t we pay Poland’s way, as well as most of the other members?
Ah, Ari! You are sorely missed! “Intelligence support”, indeed! No doubt a crack team of spooks from the Seychelles Islands are ferreting out Iraqi operatives even as we speak! Or maybe just analysts…
“Mr. President, we have recent intel from Lithuania. They claim Al Queda cells are operating in Estonia.”
And even if a country’s government is on your side, it doesn’t mean the people are. Before the start of hostilities, the majority of the UK public were against the war.
Actually, Thomas Friedman has an editorial today ripping Cheney’s speech and the NYT’s coverage of it.
If Friedman was towing the Bush administration line about Iraq before, he’s certainly not doing it now.
My favorite “iron doves” are Christopher Hitchens and Fareed Zakaria (who writes for Newsweek). In his latest column he doesn’t apologize for supporting the war in Iraq, although like Hitchens, he supported the war as an act of humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately, we didn’t go to war because we felt bad for the Iraqis, which is why nobody in the Bush administration put much thought into a post-war plan. We went to kick Saddam’s ass and destroy his WMDs so they wouldn’t get into the hands of terrorists who could use them against us. Nothing more and nothing less.
Just because something isn’t being done for the reasons you like doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. Those reasons are still applicable. Saddam Hussein was overthrown. For everyone who wanted to see that happen, the war was justified.
For those that obsess about what the administration’s reasons were it just shows that everything is about Bush. It has reached the point of being a pathology for many people, much the same way people reflexively opposed Kosovo becuase they didn’t like Clinton. Better to see a genocide take place than for a President they hated to succeed.
No, Adaher, your second premise (that the war was justified) simply does not logically follow the first premise (that this should be so for everyone who wanted to see Saddam Hussein overthrown).
I count myself amongst those who would have been happy for the Iraqi people rise up and take their own country back from a brutal ditator.
I cannot, and never will, support unprovoked aggressive wars. This is not just for moral reasons (although that would be enough for me) but also for very practical reasons, including the damage the US/UK action has done to the UN and that the world is now a far more dangerous place than ever as a direct result.
Everything the US has done since 9/11 has resulted in increased support for the forces that oppose them. The US has driven the “conflict” right down the street that the opponents hoped they would.
It is nothing to do with Bush for me, and everything to do with the foreign policy of the whole administration. I think he is a fool but probably an “honest” fool…
His speech is indicative of future actions of this administration. That’s why the line of reasoning is important. This isn’t spilt milk, this is the state of the frikkin union.
Is this how we are fighting the war on terror or isn’t it?
The administration seems to think so. THEY are the one’s pushing that angle. Therefore, we should judge them how they are asking to be judged.