The Rest of the Friggin World is not against this war. The following countries support it: Britian, Australia, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Lithuania, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Quatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Albania, Kuwait, Israel, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Macedonia, Croatia, and Japan.
Who is supposed to answer that question, Blalron, Rumsfield himself, or a doper?
Impresive! Our key lackeys cough I mean allies and some assorted tiny countries such as Estonia and Latvia.
Rumsfeld, of course! He was the one whom I asked the rhetorical questoin to.
Bush stated, as I’ve already posted, “If I found in any way, shape, or form that he (Saddam) was developing weapons of mass destruction, I’d take him out…………….I’m surprised he’s still there. I think a lot of other people are as well.” This was said during the campaign, when the economy was still robust and well before 9/11. He also stated, during the campaign, “’‘No one had envisioned Saddam…….still standing………It’s time to finish the task.’’ You can accuse Bush of many things, but he has always made his position on Iraq clear and he has been consistent.
That doesn’t jibe very well with other statements that Bush has made:
But how does this differ from the previous administration? Clinton didn’t feel he needed UN or NATO approval to attack Iraq in 1998 and NATO didn’t feel it needed UN approval to attack Yugoslavia in 1999. The only difference that I can see is that Bush is making a real effort to interest these organizations in a joint effort. But if they are unwilling to co-operate then isn’t he simply continuing the policies of his predecessor (and most of modern history) by acting without them?
What urgency? As you yourself point out this has been in the works for over two years.
I think you rather lightly dismiss the removal of a terrorist regime from a remote, rugged country which was able to embroil the Soviet Union for ten years. And it took Bush how long? A couple of months?
Couldn’t I say pretty much the exact same thing about the whole UN?
That’s spelled with an S, not an N. Who better represents the civilized world here, and who is the rogue? It isn’t as obvious as you might want it to be, proceeding as you do from the assumption that the war is necessary and appropriate. That itself is the point of discussion, and I’m surprised that has eluded you.
Ah, so it was rhetorical sniping. Thanks for the heads up. 
Warning: I haven’t taken the half hour to read this entire thread.
I’m not for war just for its sake, or for W’s, or whatever. I have brother who goes to officer school in 2 weeks, and after that he’s available to the army if they feel it necessary.
I know these are only analogies, but: You have to have the “big gun” to enforce a rule. Why do people pull over when the police lights flash? They know that if they resist in actual ways that matter, the police are willing to have them dead, and deal with that later. Why do kids obey the teacher? They know that if they resist in ways that matter, they are subject to suspensions, not graduating, and calls home to parents who may be less than pleased.
I also don’t understand two more things:
-
Why does the left keep on acting like the UN resolutions called for Iraq to allow inspectors to try to find them with things they shouldn’t have, when it’s been made plain that they called for Iraq to make haste in providing proof that it had destroyed all its WMD?
-
Why doesn’t Bush really stand up and have some principles, no matter if it means his defeat next time or not? I’d respect him SO much more if he also floated resolutions to threaten force to Israel unless it gave up occupied areas it took decades ago.
Who says war is necessary and appropriate? The UN Security Council said so. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one final chance to comply with their committment to get rid of their WMDs. Iraq flaunted the resolution. By not making good on their threat, the UN has sadly proved that they are not a serious organization.
Here’s an excerpt from a speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair at Labour’s local government, women’s and youth conferences, SECC, Glasgow.
I agree. I’ve seen too little longer-term planning to be comfortable about this action. We may not need the support of the UN, NATO or our allies to kick Saddam Hussein all over the map, but we may well need them afterwards. If the US is seriously intending to install a provisional US-controlled government in Iraq after the war, it is going to need all the international credibility it can get. Otherwise, we’re just asking for increasing unrest both internally and externally. Conversely, if we’re planning on installing a coalition government from various Iraqi factions (a la Afghanistan), the new government will definitely need the support of the international community and the US needs to start building those bridges now. This is the sort of thing the UN is for.
The lack of any apparent long-term planning worries me, in that it suggests that either the US doesn’t have any, or that it does but that it’s as self-serving and greedy as Bush’s opponents suspect it to be. Let’s have some transparency, please.
Excuse me, Mr. Gelding? We’re with the Grammar Police. If you could just step out of the thread, please… 
december:*
You see, december, this is the whole problem. It’s not your call to make. For millions of people in the world, the UN is anything other than a corpse. For millions of Europeans, for example – the vast majority, even in countries whose governments support US aggression against Iraq – the UN is the international institution of credibility. Had it not been for UN opposition, in fact, the US would probably already have invaded Iraq, so for those who oppose war, the UN is the only thing standing between us and the bomb-dropping party. Contrary to your assertion, that alone makes the UN very creditable.
In fact, after Blix’s presentation Friday – which, by the way, I notice you have carefully avoided referencing so far in this debate – the real question is not that of UN credibility, but of US credibility. Blix completely axed the satellite photo evidence Powell provided, for example. And we know that sections of Powell’s talk were not based on current US/British intelligence, but plagiarized from a 12-year-old paper written by a California grad student. How can you turn these embarrassing gaffs by the US into an attack on the credibility of the UN? It boggles the imagination.
Anyway, here in Sweden, the UN is still credible, as it is in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, England, and yes, with the exception of a sliver faction of right-wing nut-balls, even in the US. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Ahh, this is delightful. Just what we’ve been waiting for, really – the reasons. Unfortunately, I must leave my computer and walk around the room a bit, shaking my head in disbelieve at the offal you proffer here as reasons for war. We note immediately that Iraq’s possession of WMDs is not on the list, nor is its refusal to abide by UN resolutions. Instead, we have these:
“Iraq is an immanent threat to its neighbors.”
To begin with, this is false. Iraq, after a decade of bombing raids, economic sanctions, and weapons inspections/espionage, is not an immanent threat to anyone. In addition, none of Iraq’s neighbors have turned to the UN, or the US, and begged, “Oh, please, Mr. big strong USA, won’t you please save me from Saddam Hussein? He’s a-gonna tie me to the railroad track!”
Furthermore, since when does the US maintain a right to decide what constitutes an immanent threat to another country?
US: Well, we had to invade Panama – they were an imminent threat to Mexico!
Mexico: Uhh…huh? But, but…but we like Panama!
US: No, no, you don’t. Panama was far too threatening for you. You should be glad we saved you from them!
”It tortures and kills its own citizens.”
Ah, an excellent excuse for a war. Today, Baghdad, tomorrow, Bejing! And after that, Kuwait! And then Saudi Arabia! And Turkey! On Donner and Blitzen!
And after that, Dallas! Texas also kills its own citizens, after all.
”Iraq could be a threat to the US, if it provided WMDs to al Qaeda.”
Perfect. Of course, Canada could also be a threat to the US, if it provided WMDs to al Qaeda. So could France. And Belgium, and Sweden, and, well, let’s see…just about every other developed nation on the globe.
Does it not strike anyone on the right, anyone at all, that its just possible, just a teeny-weenie, itsy-bitsy, little-bitty bit possible – just ever-so-slightly possible – that going to war against another country on the basis that they could, maybe, at some future point in time, be a threat to the US, might not set a very good precedent with regard to US military action? Anyone, anyone? Scott? Mr. Bigglesworth? No? No one?
:Sets pinky against lip, furrows brow:.
Number two?
Interesting as well to note the shift, from shrill screams:
“Iraq is a threat! They’re six months away from developing nukes!” [not] “They’ve got robot-steered drone aircraft that can fly over the north pole and spray Wyoming with anthrax!” [not] “They’re going to wipe out lower Manhattan with VX!” [not] “They’ve got, they’ve got, enriched, weapons-grade lead, and, and, aluminum pipes! Yeah, that’s it!”
to
[Maxell Smith voice]
Well, would you believe one old cleaning lady with a glass eye and a three-legged poodle named “Abigail?” No?
[/Maxwell Smith voice]
to
the muffled assertion, “They could be a threat, if they…” The change speaks volumes, if you ask me.
The problem with all these smoking guns is, when you take a look at them, they turn out to be nothing but smoke.
”Effecting regime change in Iraq will be a warning to other terrorist states and terrorist groups.”
Yes. It will convince “terrorist states” that, if they wish to survive, they better develop a credible nuclear deterrence, a la North Korea, pronto. It will convince terrorist groups that the US, when faced with organizations that confound its security operations, will turn to bomb defenseless countries by proxy, as a way of appearing tough to the domestic population. Seriously, december, aside from in your fantasies, why would Al Queda worry about the US bombing one of its enemies?
Hey, look… don’t go to any trouble on our account. No, seriously, we don’t mind. In fact, as you have yourself no doubted noticed from the last round of UN debates, as well as from the massive world-wide protests held yesterday:
WE DON’T WANT YOUR FUCKING HELP, THANKS.
Is that clear enough for ya, bub?
Normally I don’t get into these mudslingers, as there is no way of winning: each side has its own particular cheerleaders, no one seems willing to let facts stand in their way. However, I would like to point out a few facts that have either been left out or distorted in the recent catfight:
- There are 191 nations that make up the UN; as far as the UN charter is considered, all have an equal voice. This same charter states the original purpose of the organization, to wit:
(taken from the UN Charter introduction: here)
Therefore, one would have to assume that the organization presents a forum whereby these 191 nations can openly air and discuss common concerns; although many feel that the UN has been “distorted” or “bent” against some of its members (according to a few posters in this thread, the targets of such bias are the US and Israel, primarily), it is admittedly limited in its goals and its abilities. Its power as an organization is derived from the member states; if they chose to stay fractured and divided, or to pursue courses of action either unilaterally or in small blocs, then the overall power of the group is effectively weakened.
-
The OP opines that the UN “committed suicide” in its recent refusal to authorize a use of force against another member state; however, if one reads the charter, one can plainly see that an avoidance of war is one of the primary reasons for the body’s existence. Although you may not personally agree with that particular stance, the fact that the organization itself is trying to stay within the ideological basis of its founding should be of no great surprise; even the latest UNSCR, 1441, pertaining to the Iraq situation, does not specifically require war or even military action. Once again: many have construed it to say such a thing, but the only phrasing that the members would agree to at the time was “serious consequences”; even the US administration acknowledges that war would require a second resolution. Did the UN invalidate itself by fulfilling its premise? Though there are people in the US and the UK administrations that may believe so (and even a few here, obviously), most of the world does not; in fact, most of the members of the world community (which you could also call the “UN”) agree with the UN’s position. If anything, it is the US/UK position that is marginalized; that is the very essence of the definition.
-
Had the UN discussions of the other day been the sole world reaction, it’s possible that some of the criticism shown here would be warranted; however, on the following day, the largest anti-war demonstrations in history took place, on a global scale. These activities can’t be ignored, especially when one considers the regime being supported; although some of this demonstrated feeling may be arguably attributed to a reaction to anti-US feeling, much of it is due to the administration’s own posturing. After 9/11, we had the world’s sympathy (even Saddam issued a speech of condolences, although it was admittedly self-serving); when asked by NATO if we wanted their support, we refused. We wanted to go it alone; there is little doubt that the administration was in “vengeance mode”, and we wanted the perpetrators to pay. Since that time (and I believe this has been addressed in the media), we have wasted that goodwill: in barely 18 months since the attack, we have somehow created an image of us as the world’s bully; when we consider that the target of our ire is someone of Saddam’s stature, and we still can’t put together a coalition of countries willing to support us, it’s mind-boggling how poorly this entire enterprise has been managed by the president and his team of advisers.
-
Some will say (have said) that a coalition exists: in fact, besides the support of the UK, a few thousand troops (less than 1% of the total) from Australia, and some gestures of “go get 'em” from a handful of other countries, there is no coalition. There is no base of support: in december’s post above he says the following:
Unfortunately, this is patently untrue: none of the ME countries (Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, Syria, KSA, Iran, Oman, Yemen, Egypt), to include Kuwait, have publicly supported actions without a UN resolution*; Turkey has not publicly stated support without a UN resolution**; Japan is asking (as of 14 February) for a UN resolution to support an attack on Iraq***; Denmark has officially stated that it will wait for a UNSC resolution; 1.5 million people marched in Italy on 15 Feb, which is giving the government serious pause on re-thinking its position. I could probably go on, but I am tired of perusing the Internet to disprove a bad argument: there is no world support for the administration’s position, and the rest of the world is, frankly, against any act of war. There’s enough rhetoric already; if you don’t have facts to support your claim of “support,” then it may be better off if you say nothing at all. The whole point of the SDMB was to promote critical thinking and “fight ignorance”; most of the posts I have read here seem to be doing exactly the opposite…
Here are the links, in case anyone thought I was making the above up:
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2240570.stm
**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12874-2003Feb15.html
***http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030214/kyodo/d7p6chug0.html
You can have any opinion you like, but if you need to create “facts” to support it, what’s the point?
Greco
One last one (how could I have missed it?)
Yes, yes, we must launch an unprovoked war, in order to maintain the peace.
After all, let’s not forget: War is Peace, isn’t it?
I hear you man, there isn’t a government in the world that isn’t rolling in corruption. thing is when it come to hypocrisy, domination of weaker nations, corruption, management of information of media, lies and rhetoric, America makes the rest of the world looks like amateurs. but thats the world we live in, hand in all your false pretences of sanctamonious morality on the way out the door.
“Following countries” is perhaps an ill phrase here, “following governments” would be more suited. its quite funny that these countries which are supposedly democracies are doing the opposite to what the majority of the people feel is right. maybe the best thing would be to get rid of the united nations all together, perhaps let king george II be king of the world, then there would be no silly things such as disagreements and democracy, and that ol irratating freedom of speech which is slowly disappearing in the land of the free.
Zigaretten–You have demonstrated that the President did talk about Iraq during the presidential campaign. That talk, as you have shown, was based on some contingencies. Those were, as I understand the quotes you posted, that Iraq develop weapons of mass destruction (whatever those might be) and that a coalition similar to the coalition of 1991 come together on the question. At this point there clearly is no coalition worthy of the name and we have been shown at best that Iraq has not fully accounted for chemical weapons it had in 1991. Unless I have missed it there has been no demonstration that Iraq is close to having nuclear weapons or that it has developed any viable bio weapon. In other words, the contingencies the President talked about have not happened. Yet we seem determined to go to war with Iraq under the justification that this administration sees threats to its vital national interest that some of our long term allies do not see and based or the possibility that Iraq may become a threat sometime in the indefinite future. I certainly can see and understand US frustration with Iraq. Surely the GHWBush administration thought Saddam would disappear after the beating he received at the hands of the US lead coalition in 1991 and the imposition of economic sanctions and the no-fly zones. I suspect that the Clinton administration, to the extent it was not preoccupied with defending President Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes, thought the same. Right now the Cheney-Rumsfeld theory of unilateral foreign policy seems to be dominant and our position is “Coalition? We don’t need no stinking coalition.” That strikes me as a very unwise approach to the world, even for The Super Power.
It almost goes without saying that to compare the Clinton administration’s throwing a few missiles into Iraq or Somalia with a full scale land, sea and air invasion is simply unfair. By the same token comparing an invasion of Iraq without UN sanction and without a wide coalition with the multinational NATO effort in the Balkans is more than unfair, it is dishonest.
A production two years in the making? Clearly I don’t know what was going on in the corridors of power, but Iraq became a front burner issue only with the midterm elections this past year. Now we are talking stuff like "the game’s over, "or “Saddam has only days and weeks left, not months,” and the mobilization of reserve forces and deployment of combat units. That sure looks like urgency to me and an urgency driven by the onset of the Persian summer.
I do not lightly dismiss the operation in Afghanistan. I do tell you that if we have an Orange Alert going on and audio tapes from the chief fiend then we can’t really say that the so-called war against terrorism is a rousing success. I note that you don’t discuss the state of the economy.
To rephrase my last comment, “You’re welcome.”
What Gedling sais. There’s is no question that Bush’s foreign policy philosophy changed markedly due to the opportunities opened by 9/11. The whole preemptive doctrine which had waiting in mothballs for the right moment–should one ever come–came to the fore since that time, and, shortly after, the relentless efforts to shift Public Enemy #1 from Osama to Saddam. If anyone remembers the debates (I think it was #3 when they discussed foreign policy; the one where they were sitting down at a table together), Bush’s foreign policy message tended towards a US isolationism. Much criticism of Clinton for having agreed to interfere in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Much reiterating of the word “humble.” “We must be strong but humble,” is I think a fair paraphrase of Bush’s pre-election foreign policy.
Since december is such a fan of New York Times’s editorial page 
, and since the subject of US credibility has been aptly raised by Mr.Svinlesha and others, I thought I’d post the Times’s editorial on the matter of specious links between Saddam and AlQ.
On the matter of it’s now or never Sam wrote “Well, you’d have to show me how, if the U.S. draws down its force now and goes home, the political ability will EVER be there to go through all this again, unless Saddam attacks someone. Just what do you think would cause the world to suddenly come together again a year or two from now and agree that Saddam has got to go?”
I agree with you, Sam, that we are closer to the brink of war at the present moment than we will be if US forces are un-deployed. However, that in itself is neither a reason to go to war, nor to dismiss the sincerity of those who don’t feel the time is right.
If the Bush administration were in more of a consensus-building mode, and less focused on the weather in Iraq, they could be making the Times’s case: i.e. proposing a table of deadlines. They could also be proposing troops to support inspections. In other words they could be leading the call for what flowbark has called a more “muscular” inspections process–with a war a possibility under certain circumstances. But instead the US has been dismissive of inspections all along: and there the problem lays.
To be sure, the whole point of an inspections approach to disarmament is to present a peaceful means to containment and, eventually, disarmament. The whole point, on ther words, is to avert war–though not necessarily to rule it out (the official French position.) I do think the US and Britain could be successful in providing the muscular pressure behind any muscular process. But so far that has not been their strategy.
Perhaps it should be? Doesn’t world opinion, and public opinion within the US and Britain, suggest the wisdom of some sort of compromise?
Oh my side hurts.
Look, Blix and his lads haven’t find any evidence whatsoever of CBN weapons. Powell was unable to provide any new evidence for those. Worse yet, Blair’s report was found to be a product of plagarism.
So really, would you give this a rest? Do you know something that the world doesn’t? :rolleyes: