Why are there quote marks around “friendly” in “installation of a ‘friendly’ government in the region.”? Do you mean to imply some irony, or some alternative definition to the commonly accepted meaning of “friendly”? How likely is it, do you think, that a government of Afghanistan that was publicly allied with the US would enjoy popular support?
And wouldn’t you agree that “installing a friendly government” that is clearly contrary to the wishes of the population at large does some violence to our pretensions of spreading “democracy”?
Second question…not very likely, though perhaps more likely than you are implying. I don’t think the average Afghani was too thrilled with the Taliban, so in theory at least, it was possible for us to come out of it more popular in the region than we were before hand. Of course, thats all out the air lock now, but it WAS possible…
Depends I suppose on exactly how we installed it. I think, conceptually, Bush et al’s idea of interrim governments, followed by a gradual turning over of the government to popularly elected officials is a good one. Its all about implementation though…and there we screwed the pooch.
Given the disconnect between what Bush promised in his campaigns and how he’s actually governed, I don’t think you can say that he honestly “presented his worldview.”
None of those support your assertion "There is not a single country (other than the USA) where there was a majority that supported the invasion of Iraq. " I want you to show the **“was” ** part, as going in, the war wasn’t all that unpopular.
In fact your last cite has nothing whatsoever to do with your assertion. :rolleyes:
I don’t think RedFury’s assertion is all that wild. There might be a few countries somewhere that supported the war, but certainly not any European contries (east or west). Looks like Australia flirted with support for a short time after the invasion, but not for long. Only minority support in Japan as well. That last cite show a plurality (not majority) of support in Israel. I couldn’t find anything about South Korea-- they may have supported it, but I doubt it.
Because the government of the United States specifically said in public that that was not their primary goal. Your claims fail to explain one simple fact:
The United States offered the Taliban a chance to avoid war if they handed over Osama bin Laden.
If, in fact, the primary goal was to overthrow the Taliban, and not to catch bin Laden, that simply would not have happened; it’s totally contradictory to your claim. But it did happen, because the primary goal at the time was getting bin Laden. Had the Taliban handed bin Laden over, it’s virtually certain the war there would not have taken place, since (a) it would have instantly become politically difficult to sell, and (b) the administration was already, at that point, more concerned about conquering Iraq, and would have happily avoided an unwanted war if at all possible.
You are unquestionably wrong, or else you somehow know more about the Administration’s plans than the Administration did.
That is true up until the point that the Taliban refused to cooperate. Maybe, as **elucidator **claims, it was beyond their capability to hand over ObL, but they showed no indication that they would even try to do so. At that point, we pretty much had to take on the Taliban in order to disable al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There is some evidence that the Taliban offered to turn over ObL to a third country (not the US), but that was only after the invasion began.
And if you read the actual AUMF it is clear that Congress apporved the use of force against a country such as Afghanistan on Sept 14, 2001 (emphasis added):
In short, I think XT’s point is substantially correct, even if I might have worded it a bit differently.
Sory, Rick, but I think we would have also demanded that their Al-Quada terrorist training and staging camps be shut down, too.
However, I agree that if the Taliban had knuckled under, we might not have gone in. It’s hard to tell though- after all, Saddam knuckled under, and we still invaded! :eek:
For the “Cite Boys” we can play this game all night. Opposition to the Iraq invasion ran as high as 70/80 worldwide.
And yes, my post is mi cite. Well, and so is Wiki.
All together now: other than the Neocons and those they managed to fool, no other country outside of Israel polled positive number for the Iraq invasion – and most certainly NOT without SC authorization. Which, BTW, was the stand of many Americans until they saw the whole nightmare was fait accompli.
And even then, worldwide opinion stood quite firmly opposed:
Please don’t tell me at this late date that The Make Their Own Reality Crowd also thought the Iraq invasion was a popular idea at the time throught the world :smack:
I disagree about the prescription drug plan. He refused to allow the government to negotiate price with the drug manufacturers. Had he not done this, the impact on the budget would be a fraction of what it turned out to be. The intent of this program was to line the pockets of his pharmaceutical lobby, not to help the people.
Eh, I think it does a little of both. But HMOs are not restricted from negotiating, and employers, who are given considerable incentive to provide private coverage to retired empolyees, use them. Trust a guy who’s dealing with the cost of fertility meds right now: HMOs can negotiate some huge discounts on meds when they act en masse. It’s far from a perfect system, I’ll readily agree, but the overhaul was something where something was badly needed.
I think Chomsky might be right about Europe, although the cite I gave for “Japan” might contradict him (if we assume that those not opposed to the war support it). But, as a linguist, how can he say something like “unilaterally by America and its allies”. He, of all people, should know what words mean!
Does Australia count as a country? Because John pointed out that they supported the invasion before it took place. (Also, I think John pointed out that Isreal had merely a plurality supported the Iraq war, and not a majority.)
If your post is going to be su cite, you might want to be more careful about conforming your post to the facts already shown.
So Furry Red asserts one hundred percent opposition, and you guys prove conclusively that he was wrong! wrong! wrong! and its only about 95%? Have I got that about right?
Well, Red, I surely hope you take this scolding to heart, and try, in the future, to refrain from such wildly exaggerated claims. I will take great comfort in the advise that my country is not universally despised, but only as a more or less general pattern of disdain, planet-wise.
Yes, thats why friendly was in quotes.