Should the rest of the world help ‘The Coalition’?
My own standpoint:
Henry
’Should the rest of the world help the Coalition?'
No, the Coalition should be left to wither and die a long slow arduous death at the hands of World opinion.
Yes. Human decency demands it. The US is only admitting what everybody already knows: if we have to do it alone, it will be an ungodly debacle. Send lawyers, guns, and money. Come a runnin’.
Doesn’t matter that it will help GeeDubya. He’s our problem. If we’re dumb enough to re-elect him, we deserve him. But the Iraqis haven’t voted for anybody in about forty years, they are innocent, they are the victims.
Besides, GeeDubya wins this one anyway. You help, he claims victory by way of brilliant and subtle diplomacy. He led, you followed. Plus he gets to bring troops home for victory parades and photo ops. What? You think he isn’t crass enough to try to spin humiliation as triumph? Bet me.
You don’t help, he blames it all on France. Again and again, he went to the UN, didn’t he? Got Seychelles, Poland and Lithuania on board, didn’t he? Recount after recount after recount…oh, excuse please. Wrong steaming load.
I agree that decency demands it. The Iraqis have suffered enough because of Dubya, don’t let spite make them suffer more. They’re not all Saddam’s lackeys.
Dubya’s like a petulant child who gets a pet against his parent’s wishes. “I don’t care if Mommy and Daddy won’t let me take care of this stray dog! I don’t need their help!” But when he secretly keeps it in the garage and it starts to get sick, it would be cruel not to help it. It didn’t do anything to deserve suffering.
Another vote for helping here.
I completely agree with elucidator and revtim that assistance should not be withheld just to spite Bush, no matter how badly he deserves it.
However, such assistance should be completely conditional on control of Iraqi operations being handed over to the UN. There’s no way that the UN should agree to go in under US supervision and authority. Not only would UN control be better for the people of Iraq, but it would serve Bush at least a small slice of the humble pie that he so sorely merits.
If only. Trade, Kyote . . . lets not go there, suffice to say he’s everyone’s problem save that strange niche breed called US conservatives.
And anyway, I don’t quite understand this current perception; the coalition is the rest of the world, *the Isolationist remains the US [i/](with the odd country helping out for its own self-serving reasons).
This is standard US/Isolationist territory; join with us but we make the rules and lead the way. Same old same old. Nothing changes. Been here for 50 years.
As for Iraq; Bush cannot afford to relinquish control as the empire would be holed below the waterline; loss of power – through not controlling the supply of the world’s oil – would begin to accelerate over the next 5-10 years.
He has to stay in Iraq, yet he can’t win the re-election battle if he goes it alone. Hence, ‘Old Europe’/’The Chocolate Makers’ are due for a lot of increasingly bizarre doublethink reality-adjustments courtesy of US.Inc
I waffled over this for a quite a while, since it would be unconscionable to allow the situation in Iraq to degrade into an even more spectacular catastrophe to spite the Bush administration.
Eventually, though, I became persuaded that those representing the dilemma in the binary terms of “Pony up or let innocent people suffer” are advancing an excluded middle argument.
Let the U.S., err, I mean, “the coalition of the willing” shoulder the burden, proportionate to their involvement and ability-- even it it cripples their economies. The U.N. should be pressuring these rogue states into acknowledging their responsibility and meeting their obligations.
Let the costs be prominently visible at home, where there’s some hope they’ll impact the electorate. If you vote loose cannons in who take a big dump on the world stage, let the cleanup costs come out of your budget. Don’t diffuse them amongst countries where the consensus has, from the start, been that going in with guns blazing would be a serious mistep.
You wanna act unilaterally? Get used to it. Pay your own fucking bills. Miss a few meals, borrow from your education budget, stop being so free with tax breaks for your buddies, and kiss your fucking second term goodbye, you arrogant prick.
And your little dog, too.
That’s assuming the Bush administration will let the US economy suffer, and not just abandon Iraq or only help it half-assed. The same administration that had to be reminded to put Afghanistan in its budget, it “forgot” in the first draft.
The UN is going to tie our hands behind our backs and let all the little guys take a swipe at us. When it looks like we have had enough to learn our lesson, they will step in and sooth our wounds.
Let me hazard a wild ass guess, you hate the U.S., very fucking original. :o So even if I was opposed to the war, think Shrub is a dangerous megalomaniac surrounded by lackeys who is going about Daddy’s business settling a score(among other reasons, already discussed ad fucking nauseum), I deserve to have my economy “crippled” loose my job and my familiy’s only source of income? You are a truly an inspirational humanist. It must be nice to live in a world with no grey.
While i understand where you’re coming from, remember that, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it was Bush who eliminated the shades of grey in the first place.
“You’re with us, or you’re against us.”
labmonkey, I have no hatred of the U.S. Hell, I love the U.S.A., by-and-large. I just don’t think other nations are obliged to pay for the ill-advised foreign policy of the current U.S. administration.
Why are some people so quick to assume unreasoning anti-american sentiment is behind any criticism of policy?
If some other government tried to get the UN on-board for a hostile overthrow of a country that you (and the overwhelming majority of the international community) remained unconvinced presented a credible threat, failed, pushed ahead almost entirely alone, and realized that they were in over their head, would you be willing to dig into your pocket to spare that government embarrassment at home?
As it happens, the Bush administration has no real need to go begging to those whose judgement it has so recently dismissed as “irrelevant.” Alternatively, they could take a political hit and take back the tax cuts they’ve extended to the wealthiest 1% of their electorate, and more than make up the cost of their war. This, they have unequivocably refused to do, with an eye on the polls in 2004.
Their bed, they can lie in it.
Here’s a newsflash, stupid. Crippling the economy of the US means crippling the economy of the world. And if push comes to shove, I’m pretty sure we aren’t going to cripple our economy to marginally improve some third world sandpile.
msmith, meet hyperbole.
Translation: “If an elected government makes costly mistakes, they should pay the political price for it before extending a begging-bowl to those who advised against those mistakes.”
I doubt that anyone really imagines that other UN members are in a position to bail out the US economy in any real sense. The US has a relatively robust economy and is in a position to absorb the cost of the war with little hardship, which is largely why the request has gone over so poorly in the rest of the world.
Gotta love some of these conservative wankers. When Iraq serves the their cynical needs, it’s a desperate country with good people who need to be rescued from a tyrant.
But as soon as the venture starts to backfire, they show their true colours, and Iraq is once again just “some third world sandpile.”
Kudos to you, msmith, for at least being honest.
Well we’ll see if Bush pays a political price in 2004. A lot of that will depend on whether the Democrats can field a candidate that can offer anything other than “not Bush”.
As for the rest of the world, do they deserve to “pay the price” for Bush’s decisions? What do you think will happen if we up and pull out of iraq and leave it in chaos?
Got to love those liberal crybaby bitch-hos. They are always quick to criticise mistakes but pretty slow in suggesting solutions.
We did propose a solution - approximately ten million of us did, on February 15.
You stuffed the grenade down your pants anyway.
So the same group that couldn’t stop the US from going to war is going to force the US to “meet their obligations”? That would be a nice trick.
Larry Mudd , the reason I’m so uppity is that the anti-jingoism, has gotten, well, jingoistic.
I didn’t elect king George I or II, and don’t see where I should have to take it on the chin anymore than some poor average Iraqi Joe whose home and livelyhood were destroyed in a “collateral damage” incident because Saddam was a rat bastard, who repeatedly violated UN sanctions not to mention basic human rights. Fine, George made his bed, I agree with your sentiments, but like someone already mentioned, do you really think he and his 1%er buddies are going to be the ones “digging in their pockets” to spare themselves embarassment? Naw, I’m pretty sure that duty and honor will fall on people like myself.