so is meaningful coalition another example of the left moving the goalposts on iRaq? you know, originally the bleat was the no WMD had been found. now that that claim no longer hold up, the left and it's party organ the NYTimes have begun to complain that no stockpiles of WMD have been found. of course, once they are, I'm sure the Times will claim the stockpiles aren't massive, you know, like they claimed a gallon of Sarin was just a trace. it's the rush to discredit again...
so is meaningful coalition another example of the left moving the goalposts on iRaq? You know, when most people talk about creating a global coalition - as is what Kerry, Bush Sr., and many, many others advocated prior to invading Iraq, they are talking about a meaningful one. The goal is not to create a fake coalition, a coalition in name only, or anything else. Is this really not obvious? This is why no one considers the Britain-US-and-5-soldiers-from-8-other-countries group a true coalition. you know, originally the bleat was the no WMD had been found. now that that claim no longer hold up Did I miss something? Where has a weapon of mass destruction been found? Those shells or whatever aren't weapons of mass destruction. If anything, they are less destructive than a regular artillery shell. A weapon, in order to be of "mass destruction", has to have the capability to do ... mass destruction. We have found nothing of that sort. Declaring them such, of course, would truly be moving the goalposts on Iraq. it's the rush to discredit again... Or, from the other perspective, the rush to justify... as was done with the other dozens of finds of WMD, only to be followed by "nevermind".
basso, are you familiar with the term "gaslight?" Because every so often I just become convinced that's what you're going for here. You will not succeed in making me think I am insane. You've gotten close, with this post again, but you will not succeed. Massive stockpiles of WMD's was pro-war language, not anti-war. You will not make me think I'm insane by trying to flip it. The goalpost has been repeatedly moved by the administration, not by anyone who's opposed the war. Not just on WMD's either, but on virtually everything. There have been far too many posts on this for it to be necessary for me to provide a categorical list. I know you're already familiar with the admin's steady practice of moving the goalpost. I can only assume you are trying to make me think I am insane by pretending you don't. And by meaningful coalition I mean something like the one the first Bush formed for the first Iraq war. I opposed that one too, strongly, and it was another case of the admin moving the goalpost on the reasons for war, but at least it didn't alienate virtually all of our allies. I would start my definition of a meaningful coalition as one that didn't alienate virtually all of our allies at a time when we need them most and go from there.
define "allies" please. must a coalition of "allies" include france and germany to be "meaningful" or to quote Eyeore, not fraudulent?
Good post, Major. I'll also remind you, basso, that I have never contended WMD's wouldn't be found. I didn't even do it after the tens of stories about how they'd already been found were discredited. But the sarin is, by all accounts, likely old and from a time before the first Gulf War. I continue to believe they may find the WMD's they promised, but they haven't yet. I'll further remind you that it's the admin (not us) who have moved the goalpost from a grave and gathering threat including massive stockpiles of WMD's whose specific location we said we knew for a certain fact and an impending nuke program to programs to plans for programs.
I know these countries have become the bogeymen to you guys, but as recently as Afghanistan they were among our very closest allies. And they were right out there with us, willingly and enthusiastically, in the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and I'm pretty sure everything in between. But okay, if they were the lone stubborn holdouts some try to portray them to be, that'd be different. I think we could certainly form a meaningful coalition that a couple of our closest allies opposed. But then what about Russia? What about the fact that the war was strongly opposed by the populations of every country in the world save two? What about the fact that the way it's been conducted -- in many ways, the way we warned against -- has resulted in the war being opposed by majority populations in every single country in the world, including our own? The latest CBS poll has something like 65% of Americans opposing US Iraq policy and the latest polls out of Iraq have over 80% of Iraqis wanting us gone. And we have pissed off our closest allies, including but damned certainly not limited to France and Germany. I mean, Jesus, how do YOU define allies? How do you define a coalition?
Basso, most people believed Saddam had some kind of chemical or biological weapons capability, however whether Iraq posed a dire threat to the U.S. and the region was in dispute. The Bush Administration engaged in a concerted effort to hype this threat. They told us that Saddam had tons of chemical and biological weapons, that these weapons could be deployed on 45 minutes notice, that we knew where these weapons were located, that we had found mobile biological weapons labs, that they had aerial drones that could disperse these weapons (and insinuated that they posed a threat to the continental U.S.), that Iraq had an active and robust nuclear weapons program (remember all the talk about a mushroom cloud). Which of these claims was accurate? As for moving goal posts, the Administration's (and it's supporters) game is closer to Three Card Monte- Its about WMDs, No, no its about ties to Al Qaeda, No look over here its about human rights. Nope, its WMDs again.
one thought major, batman, macbeth, etc., as you each continually look for news ways to discredit the iRaq war, and the admin's various justifications for it (by far the most important of which was the link between WMD and terrorists), including the humanitarian case, have you paused to consider how devaluing the latter in this case make future humanitarian interventions that much harder to execute? can you imagine a future president, kerry or someone else, faced with a massive human tragedy like that in rwanda, or currently in Somalia, being reluctant to commit US troops because france or germany is also on the fence? do you realize what you're advocating by continually demeaning the work the US is trying to accomplish in iRaq? that international interventions of whatever stripe, including where millions of lives may be at stake, can only be effected w/ security council approval? of course, somalia is currently blocking intervention at the UN. are you cool with that scenario?
can you imagine a future president, kerry or someone else, faced with a massive human tragedy like that in rwanda, or currently in Somalia, being reluctant to commit US troops because france or germany is also on the fence? There is a huge difference between a virtually-unilateral invasion of a country, and a widely-supported humanitarian intervention. If the U.S. had taken the lead on Rwanda (one of Clinton's biggest mistakes, in my opinion), the world would have followed and would have participated - because there was a clear moral/ethical case for it. The rest of the world has almost always been willing to follow when we lead on things that are very clearly morally justified. Those countries are always willing to provide ground troops for things like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. We simply have to lead, because only we have that capability. The case for war in Iraq was far more vague. We asked the world to believe our intelligence, even though we refused to reveal its sources or credibility (turns out at least some of it was simply made up by Chalabi's group). The world balked, and the longer we go, the more it looks like they were right and we were wrong. I don't see any reason to blame France or Germany for sitting on the fence here. of course, somalia is currently blocking intervention at the UN. are you cool with that scenario? What are you referring to here? Somalia can't block anything at the UN. They do not have veto power in the UNSC. On a separate note, I have no problem with unilateral humanitarian interventions. However, this war was not in any way pushed on those grounds, and was not planned for those purposes. Everything discussed with the U.N. and the American people pre-war was about removing Saddam from power for security reasons.
they're on the UNCHR: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108483696135614030,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks and http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77738
they're on the UNCHR: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...Fand_outlooks and http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthre...&threadid=77738 I'm not a WSJ subscriber, so I can't access the first link. On the second, I see nothing about Somalia blocking anything? The UNCHR is irrelevent in doing anything - if any action were to be taken against Sudan, it would occur in the Security Council ... and the U.S. has to take the lead there.
it's sudan, not somalia, my bad. "the u.s. has to take the lead there." why the u.s.? aren't there other countries on the SC? or do they count only when undermining u.s plans, at which point they become "allies?"
it's sudan, not somalia, my bad. "the u.s. has to take the lead there." why the u.s.? aren't there other countries on the SC? or do they count only when undermining u.s plans, at which point they become "allies?" As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. is the only country with the ability to lead these types of operations. We're the only ones with the reach to run a massive military operation half way across the globe. The world needs our carriers, our tanks, our jets, our technology, etc. Other countries have consistently been willing to provide support - money, ground troops, the aid itself, etc. What they are not good at is leadership - look what happened with Somalia when we asked someone else to lead. That's the responsibility we get by being the world's only superpower.
so in iRaq, where we led a coalition of 40 nations, it doesn't count because our "allies" France and Germany refused to join in?
so in iRaq, where we led a coalition of 40 nations, it doesn't count because our "allies" France and Germany refused to join in? If the nations are ones that provided 5 troops, then no it doesn't count. This is where we go back to the coalition in substance, not just in name. Gulf War I was a true coalition; Afghanistan was a true coalition (more logistically than in actual troops). Gulf War II was not - I don't know that even the administration would disagree with that. Even those few countries that truly participated in substance have populations that are against it. Most, if not all, of those countries' people have since decided they want to have less to do with the U.S. now. Even Britain now has a major of people wanting an independent foreign policy: <img src="http://people-press.org/reports/images/206-1.gif"> Whatever this was, it wasn't a coalition of forces in the sense that previous international engagements have been. Our standing in the world and our credibility amongst the people of the world has fallen dramatically in the past 1 1/2 years. That's not supposed to happen when you lead a coalition with the force of the world at your back.
