Damn, second page. I guess the odds of Hydro coming back to say anything other than “Cite?” are quickly approaching zero.
Now, that’s not fair, Munch. Has has come back twice already. Once with this:
And another time with this:
Can’t you just see how anxious he is to debate the issue?
How could anyone triumph over the mighty canadians charging towards them on mooseback throwing snowballs with one hand and swinging hockeys sticks in the other?
Oh, great, another Hydrocortisone “Fire-And-Forget” OP. At least Brutus was around to pick up that side of the argument in his own fashion.
Let’s see…
(1) I tend to “liberal” on most policy issues but am not wed to any particular party line. That said…
(2) The “Coalition of the Coerced” PDF does not impress me. Of course there will be carrots and sticks dangled before other governments. It’s what you DO when you’re a World Power.
(3) Still, yes, some of these places are absurd, NOT because they are worthless but because they either are in no shape to really make a difference or because their “governments” hardly control more than the grounds of the parliament building (v. the abovementioned Solomon Islands). OTOH having a place like Eritrea on board does provide a useful resource (a.k.a. port facilities and ELINT sites)
(Note: the Dominican Republic has a batallion deployed to Iraq. So does El Salvador. How likely is that?)
(3) Where we may get bogged down is on a Clintonesque go-around on the meaning of “unilateral”. The action may have involved multiple partners, but it’s pretty apparent that the decision that there had to be a war and when, was pretty much a Bush-Blair show, and anyone signing on had to buy into it “as is”. Really, how much debate do we think GWB had with the PMs of Australia, Poland or Spain about whether or not, and if so when, there should be an attack? At the same time, the group arguing against the war included major players in the world stage, but it ALSO included many voices whose main output tends to be hot air and muddled thought.
(4) Of course, this would another story if we openly assumed the more traditional, historic approach to starting wars, namely that it’s done in “our” trategic interest. But, if one’s going to pay lip service to being the enforcer of “International Law” in what Bush The Father called a ‘New World Order’, it’s not uneasonable of the rest of that World to expect to get to vote on what are the orders. There’s been too much playing at really caring about working in consensus with the Security Council or with NATO over alternative methods; but if we’re going to do so only until it stops suiting us, and then go and do our thing anyway, we should not be as silly as to still insist in proclaiming very loudly that this is what really captures the spirit of those resolutions.
(5) Sending a submarine to a desert war certainly minimizes potential casualties. The Danish DM is a genius.
(6) A Damn Fool War is still a Damn Fool War even if you win it, but you should try to see it to a good end if you got into it, and it’s a Good Thing if you can do so.
jrd
The one-trick pony rides again!
Yeesh. :rolleyes:
Actually, the country on that list, aside from the U.K., that impresses me the most is the Czech Republic, which did send a small contingent of troops, and apparently not from being bullied into it, but because for once they could be part of a coalition to stop an aggressor. The Czechs have a 300-year-old tradition of being the victims of an expansionist neighbor – which neighbor’s changed over the years, but the victimization hasn’t. Quite literally, if you take a year ending in “8” at random from that time period and ask a Czech who knows his country’s history about it, the odds are just under 50% that he can answer, “Oh, that’s when ____ imposed their rule on us by force.”
There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq is better off with Saddam Hussein removed from power. And at least some of the neighbors are safer as a result. So don’t get me wrong that the invasion of Iraq was in some way “evil.”
But for the first time in 226 years, the United States went to war (without, please note, the Congressional declaration of war called for by the Constitution) not because we were attacked, not in response to a treaty, not coming to the aid of an ally who had been the victim of aggression, but because we found the de jure government of another nation despicable and therefore used our power to remove it. That is contrary to a longstanding American tradition.
The Bush Administration has given any number of justifications for the war, many of which have not proved out in the aftermath. Where’s the evidence that Saddamian Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda or other international terrorists? Where’s the evidence for the weapons of mass destruction? Where are Iraq’s atomic weapon caches?
In 1945 we agred to an intrnational body that would have the moral force to combat aggression, and the right to call upon its member states to provide pragmatic armed force to actually do the combatting. It was founded on, and received the same name as, the alliance of nations who banded together to defest Hitler, Mussolini, and the expansionist Japanese. For complex historical reasons, that body has transformed itself into a group with all the international authority and moral force of a high school debate club. But it should have been the body which quarantined and took military action against Saddam’s Iraq – not the U.S., whether unilaterally or backed by a short list of allies who let us do most of the fighting. (No offense to the British or Canadian troops who fought bravely – but in point of fact the vast majority of anti-Iraq armed forces recognized a Commander-in-Chief named George W. Bush.)
And the Bush Doctrine on international intervention set by this war sets a precedent I find disturbing. Is it not quite possible that we would intervene to protect another country from a government that doesn’t meet American ideals? And might we take that to the extreme – suppose Canada elects a majority of NDP MPs – should we not “save them from socialism”?
and will any of their citizens be released from Guantanamo Bay, or be given a trial or even allowed access to a lawyer? :rolleyes:
Of course not. Bush doesn’t know what an ally is (his definition is probably ‘someone who contributes to my election campaign’).
Please don’t assume Blair has any say in any US decision. He was working hard for a second resolution when Bush cut the ground from under him.
This is a one-country war.
I believe when he was last asked, he came up with “a narrow passageway between two buildings”.
When did this “assumption of hate” tactic against liberals start? All of a sudden, you can’t be non-conservative with being full of hate.
Didn’t mention those countries? Why do you HATE them?
Don’t support the war/Bush? Why do you HATE America?
In fact, the titile of this OP is so similar to “Why do you HATE America?” cliche that I wonder if Hydro has whooshed us.
I wonder if Hydro is just as upset with [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/000/983bzaah.aspconservatives who use the term unilateral.
Ah the self-appointed “expect” speaks again. Incorrectly, as usual.
Cite edited for clarity:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/numbers.html
And lots of Canadian military facts here as well, showing that our northern friends can more the take care of themselves, even with their current budget problems.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/bigpicture/military/links.html
So while Canada is in a position to thump Palau if it wanted to, fortunately for Canadians, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t force Curious George on them.
So before you call anyone else an idiot, do try and get your own facts right.
Also, the US and UK make up what percentage of the total fighting forces within Iraq? Of that, what percentage of the actual fighting is done by U.S. forces? Darn those pesky facts. Please compare and contrast a what a true Coalition looks like (Gulf War 1) before you boldly declare this to be a true Coalition effort when only a very small number of non-U.S. or U.K. fighting forces are invovled.
Here let me do some of your work for you:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/06/number_of_troops_in_iraq_to_expand/
Hmm, let’s see how many troops a large “Coalition” member, like say Australia, has committed:
And what are the 850 actually doing though?
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s1010569.htm
Hmm. Up to 180,000 versus 850, many of whom don’t seem to be actually directly invovled in the fighting. I could make a point about some “idiot far-right winger” typically talking out his ass- but that wouldn’t make me any better then you. Well, except for the not being wrong all the time part.
Still would be better then Rumsfled’s attempt to weasel out of “long hard slog”. That was classic.
Really? I think his exact words were, “You know, that thing we keep on tellin’ about Weapons of Mass Destructionism.”
Or maybe that’s adamnedly.
Daniel
My favorite piece of military assistance: a recent article in the NYTimes said, at least at first, U.S. troops will be assigned to guard the Japanese troops in Iraq.
I’m sure Hydro will rejoin the debate, but he’s on a date with his “lady friend” right now.
Eh, fuck Hydro and his lame “pit debates.” Let’s talk about Newsmax’s Ann Coulter Doll!!
*(wipes away tears of joy and pride, sings “God Bless America” in quivering voice)
Damn! I love the Danes! You all have too much of a national sense of humor ever to allow yourselves to be truly bullied. But I must warn you that I am an American Liberal and therefore may turn my snarling jaws upon you at any moment. (Send havarti or else!!!)
Hell, the Belgians sent a submarine containing 200 paratroopers.
[/old joke] 
I just love this list of the “willing”… I consider myself very very good at geography and I don’t know where half a dozen of these countries are ! Its pretty pathetic to keep bringing this up like 32 countries were a huge list… well actually its pretty huge considering that invading Iraq is the dumbest thing done in a long while.
What amuses me more is that the OP doesn’t even bother comparing it to the 1991 list… not only of those who sent troops but those that openly supported the war !
The public? Hell, Bush felt unable to meet Parliament because he was so scared of hecklers. I would pay actual cash money to see Bush stand up in front of Congress just once and do a Brit-style “question time” the way Blair and other UK PMs do on what, a weekly basis? Of course our “opposition” party is filled with mewling prats so they’d probably softball him (even then I have my doubts Bush could handle it without a direct link to Karl Rove).