"what good is the rest of the world" is exactly the attitude we need to get rid of in Washington. Following that logic, maybe we should have conducted GWI alone, without the troop and monetary commitments from the worldwide community, commitments that kept the US monetary commitment to a total of $5 billion, less than is necessary for two months of our current action in Iraq. Kosovo should have been a US alone action as well, since we needed to cajole our allies into helping us with that action too. Maybe it would have been better if we had just thumbed our nose at the international community before Afghanistan so that we could have borne the brunt of the fiscal and human costs there as well. The rest of the free world may need to be led, sometimes they may need to be convinced, and sometimes they may need to be virtually forced, but ANY military action taken by the international community will be seen as more legitimate in many parts of the world than the US acting alone (or even with Britain and Poland's support). Bush has shown that he is either unwilling or incapable of leading the world, which is a bit surprising given the overwhelming support he got for Afghanistan. Kerry will do a much better job of leading this country and the world.
I started to reply to basso, andy, and found myself unable to do so without saying something that I'm sure someone would have found uncivil, so thank you for making it unnecessary... thus preserving my attempt to: Keep D&D Civil!! Really, there are times I find myself "speechless" after reading someone's post. It's not something that often happens to me in "real life," I can assure you. And often it is something from someone I believe to be very intelligent, which is even more frustrating. However, I should rest easy... I'm sure I provoke the same response on occasion.
Let's have a premptive war. It has been almost a year and a half without a new one. The terrorists will think that we have become "nuanced" or "sensitive". Iran would not be doing this if they were having to deal with occupying American volunteers from small town America. They would be focusing all their effort on expelling us instead of nuclear power and or weapons. Besides there are reports that there was at least one Al Qaeda member who travelled through Iran so they might be intending to harbor Al Qaeda in the future some time. Iran has a lot of oil and gas. Seems like they have an "intent" to have wmd in the future. They also are Muslim and they have voted against the expansion of Israel in the UN nuerous times. Besides why should the Iraqi people be getting all the love when the Iranians need some, too?
For those still not up for a premptive war, I would just like to ask you why you think the world would not be better off with a democracy and freedom in Iran , rather than the present government dominated by fundamentalist muslim clerics.
Of coures we saw how well sanctions worked with Iraq (read the report) . Sanctions only work if every country is willitng to participate. Iraq clearly showed there were many countries willing to circumvent the sanctions for personal profit. Sanctions also hurt the people of a country as the rulers keep all the good stuff (and smuggled stuff) for themselves. If we place international sanctions on Iran you can bet that Iran will start showing starving children in the street as part of a concerted effort (taken from Saddam's playbook) to break the will of the International community and get around the sanctions without complying. Iraq showed it can be done.
For those who rely on 'world consensus' I assume we don't have to worry about putting US troops in Iran. The 'international community' will be taking care of this one, right? Like Bosnia, Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, etc.
i think you've (purposefully?) misunderstood my point. i wasn't suggesting we shouldn't have allies, where it makes sense, coalitions of the willing if you will, and GW1 was a good case in point. however, the same coalition would never have been formed by GW2. too many of the original actors were taking their prompts from saddam. there was simply no way, kerry notwithstanding, to get them on board. in the case of iraq, if something were to be done, it had to be done sans france, et al. this is a different question than "was it wise to invade?" it may be wise to invade, even w/o allies, if the cause if just. for some of us, the iraq war met/meets that test. your milage may vary. whether the same justification applies to doing something about iran, well, it's too soon to say. however, in my mind, depriving iran of the means to build nuclear weapons is a global good that trumps the global test, and is something the next president will have to find a way to ensure, allies or no.
You say we misunderstood your point, but you haven't explained why you said "what good is the rest of the world" Actually the entire quote is even better: Well, to answer your question, how can we know? They weren't confronted by a clear and present danger! Your "what good is the rest of the world" attitude speaks for itself, and is a perfect representation of the administration's attitude. And where has it gotten us? Legitimacy matters. Respectability matters. Leadership matters. Accountability matters. We make the world a better place by leading and setting a good example. We do the opposite when we do the opposite. This is ridiculous. What an excuse. There was "no way" to form a coalition? Ha! How can we know! Shrub didn't even try! He said "you're either with us or against us" (you know something is wrong when you hear that phrase) and marched right in, didn't even negotiate to get Turkish airspace for a double-front invasion! How hard would that have been, to get Turkish airspace? As a world leader, bush is more than a failure. He has spent all credibility, and has earned nothing but disrespect and thinks nothing of accountability. All he has are apologists to come and tell us that it doesn't matter that Bush can't lead the world, 'cause hey, the rest of the world doesn't matter! Indeed. Your test requirements for invasion are very, very low. Bush didn't meet his own requirements as he put them forth to the nation on television. I watched him, and I believed him. I was for the war. Either he didn't have the cause to meet his own test as he himself proclaimed it, or he was incompetent enough to go in on bad intelligence, or he's a liar. If you support the war/invasion of Iraq as it was done, then it's hypocritical to say it's too soon to do the same to Iran. Iran (and Saudi and others) far exceeds the low standards you hold for invasion. How can you say it's too soon? Those people against the war before it was waged said it was too soon, too- and they were decried as unpatriotic for it.
Yes! Why are you America-hating wusses so against making the world a better place? Come on! Answer this simple question: is the world a better place with or without the Mullahs ruling Iran? Don't wimp out on this one- we don't have time for namby-pamby negotiations and sanctions! In a post-911 world, there is only time for action! We cannot wait for the smoking gun- it may be a mushroom cloud! There's no grey area here, so don't p***y-foot around the topic. This is black and white. You with us or against us. Either we take these f*ckers out now or we send a clear message to the world: "We are total bent-over wussies! Come, terrorists of the world, bomb us! We are weak!" Iran defies the UN! Repeatedly! And this isn't ricin, baby- this is the big one! Nukes! We can't be soft here! Iran is far more a threat than Iraq ever was- and we know what happened to Iraq!
Just an FYI. The sanctions were meant to diminish or eliminate Saddam's WMD making capacity to aid in the disarmament of Iraq. They had clearly done their job BECAUSE a very good leader, GHWB, led the world in creating and enforcing them. There were some obvious abuses of the system, which one can expect when sanctions are in place in a country with such a valuable resource as petroleum, but those abuses did not even rise to the level that would have allowed Saddam to create weapons. The sanctions were about WMDs and seem to have been VERY effective at eliminating Saddam's WMD stockpiles and even reducing his ability to create more. Of course the clear difference we are talking about here is that Saddam never even sniffed the possibility of a nuclear program. I believe that the right leadership could EASILY convince the world to enforce tough sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The US will not be able to do this alone, especially now, and GWB is not the kind of leader who can accomplish it. We need a leader that can get the job done and the only candidate with that ability is John Kerry.
Hasn't the UN (or NATO) been right there with us for virtually every humanitarian mission we have undertaken up to Iraq? They need to be convinced sometimes, and sometimes they might need to be forced, but the right leader can do it when the cause is just, as it clearly is in the cases you mention. Iraq's case was much less clear cut than the ones you mentioned and the international community simply did not believe that Saddam had WMDs. Turns out that they were right and GWB was wrong about that, which is the BIG reason that we need to look at how we go to war. GWB and Co. may have brainwashed their dittoheads to believe that "Saddam himself was a WMD" (I actually heard my brother in law say that and I almost fell out), but the international community needed more than just "Saddam's bad, mmmmmmmmmkay." The support that I gave for Iraq was based on WMDs and was directly related to the yellowcake reference in the SOTU. Many Americans changed their minds when visions of mushroom clouds were brought into the discussion. Other issues (violation of UNSC resolutions, human rights abuses, etc) were discussed, but the main case for war was based on WMDs. WMDs were the entire reason for the UNSC resolutions and the sanctions, but now Bush just wants to sweep the misstatements, distortions, and the way he was manipulated into war by a hostile government under the rug. The sanctions might have been removed and I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted the sanctions off. He wanted to sell his oil so his country would have an income. The US would have continued to enforce no-fly zones and keep close watch on Saddam, but as we have seen, Saddam was not an issue and could not have been one for quite some time. Personally, I believe that Bush decided to go to Iraq after 9/11 gave him an excuse. Too many people from inside the administration have sung the same tune for it to be fiction. I agree with John Kerry on this, Saddam was a threat, he needed to disarm, there was a right way and a wrong way to disarm him and GWB chose the wrong way.
U.S. in talks with Europe on Iran nuclear deal Steven R. Weisman/NYT The New York Times Wednesday, October 13, 2004 WASHINGTON The Bush administration is holding talks with its European allies on a possible package of economic incentives for Iran, including access to imported nuclear fuel, in return for suspension of uranium enrichment activities that are suspected to be part of a nuclear arms program, according to European and U.S. diplomats. While the administration has not endorsed any incentives for Iran, the diplomats said Monday, it was not discouraging Britain, France and Germany from assembling a package that it would consider after the American presidential election on Nov. 2, for likely presentation to Tehran later in the month. Any support of a package of incentives, even if it is to be offered only by the Europeans, would indicate a significant shift in the Bush administration policy of demanding penalties, but not offering inducements, to get Iran to halt activities that are suspected to be for a nuclear arms program. European diplomats said the administration was very squeamish about even discussing incentives, in part because it would represent a policy reversal that would provoke a vigorous internal debate, and in part because of the presidential campaign. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, has made Iran an issue, criticizing the administration for not working more closely with European nations. Kerry has said that if elected he would endorse a deal supplying Iran with civilian nuclear fuel under tight restrictions and would press for sanctions if Iran refused. Under prodding from Washington, the International Atomic Energy Agency has set late November as the deadline by which Iran must comply with demands that it do more to disclose its nuclear activities. The United States wants to send the matter to the United Nations Security Council for discussion of sanctions if there is no compliance. A European diplomat said there were plans to have a proposal ready soon after the elections. "The Europeans are in discussion to present some kind of package to present to Iran within the short window of opportunity between the American election and the end of November," the European diplomat said. "If it works, fine. If it doesn't work, we are going to have to talk about sanctions." The package under discussion, besides allowing Iran to import nuclear fuel for the civilian reactor it is planning to install at Bushehr, might also lift certain economic penalties on Iran, allowing it to import spare parts for its ailing civilian airline. But the discussions with the Europeans are also said to include specific sanctions that would be sought if Iran turns down any incentives presented by the Europeans, the European and American diplomats said. Because there may not be enough votes for sanctions on the Security Council, the sanctions might only be adopted by the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. "If there is going to be a substantial Iran policy, it has to have incentives for Iran or it may not work," said a European diplomat. Another European diplomat said that although the incentives had not been fleshed out for endorsement in Washington, there had been "an ongoing process of discussion between the Europeans and the Americans" and that whatever the Europeans come up with next month "will not come as a surprise" to Washington. European officials said that whether or not President George W. Bush is re-elected, the administration could find itself facing a tough deadline and divided over how to proceed. Details of the highly sensitive talks on Iran have begun to leak out in Europe and were disclosed by European officials who advocate some conciliation toward Iran as the only way to change its behavior. Foreign ministers of the European Union, who met Monday in Luxembourg, said that they supported what officials called a "carrots and sticks" approach for the government in Tehran. After these disclosures, an administration official subsequently confirmed that the discussions with European nations were under way. "We are still dealing with theoreticals," said the American official, adding that the discussions were intense. Officials knowledgeable about the package under discussion say that many of the details still need to be fleshed out. But they say that American sanctions on Iran would have to be lifted for the package to be accepted. Iran says it won't be forced. The European Union cannot force Iran to give up its right to enrich uranium, Reuters reported from Tehran on Tuesday, quoting Iran's foreign minister. "It is wrong for them to think they can, through negotiations, force Iran to stop enrichment," the minister, Kamal Kharrazi, said at a news conference in Tehran. "Iran will never give up its right to enrichment." link
Hopefully it would be similar to Bosnia, where the Europeans did play a major role. The U.S. went in a well, and our leadership/help was needed, but at least, as of Clinton's last year in office, the European's were 80% of the ground force.
First off its ridiculous for you to claim the 'US went in as well.' If its going to be similar to Bosnia then I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for action, lol. Euros literally allowed straight up genocide and rape camps next door, and would never have acted at all until the US and UK threatened to go it alone. And they repeated the scenario later in Kosovo. 'As well' my ass. Clinton's main impetus being the growing vocal concern from US citizens. Yep, those same citizens who supported removing Saddam while Euros wanted to leave him in power. Where was the 'global consensus' then? Where was the outrage from those supposedly enlightened Euro populations while genocide was happening next door? If you want a good picture of Europe then imagine a whole continent of glynch's. I find it most unreasonable that we are supposed to wait for a global consensus before action when that consensus is hardly ever forthcoming.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan, but they aren't in <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=78386">Role of German troops in north Afghanistan questioned after riot</a> <a HREF="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=9816"> Rocket attack on German camp in Afghanistan</a> <i>.........Already, the German troops in Afghanistan have a reputation of being over-cautious in avoiding casualties. When on 8 September an angry mob attacked the offices of the Swiss charity Medair (after rumors that local female staff had been raped), it was unarmed staff from the British security firm Global Risk who came to the rescue - not the German troops. And in Kabul, according to one security contractor, German troops “race from one end of town to the other” in their armored vehicles without daring to get out and patrol on foot.</i> <hr color=blue> The European NATO partners seem reluctant to put there forces in <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3618276">Nato Spearhead Force 'Ready for Action'</a> <i>...........However, initial French opposition to using part of the new force to help protect last weekend’s elections in Afghanistan has raised questions about the effectiveness of such a multinational unit – where approval for its deployment must be unanimous from all 26 allies. Eventually NATO, including France, agreed to send some 550 Italian troops from the NRF to the Afghan elections. The force is scheduled to grow to 24,000 within the next couple of years. Officials were to declare today that it is prepared for a full range of operations including peace support, humanitarian assistance and rescue missions. NATO hopes the force can help avoid delays which have dogged efforts to expand its Afghan operation since it was launched in August 2003. Nations’ reluctance to provide troops for the costly and dangerous mission prevented the alliance from completing an expansion of the operation from the capital, Kabul, into northern provinces until this month. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is expected to impress on ministers the need to quickly expand the mission into western Afghanistan – a move that would free up US troops to fight Taliban and al-Qaida remnants in the south and east. Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to NATO, told reporters travelling with Rumsfeld late on Tuesday that the US is pressing the alliance to take over the US-led military mission in Afghanistan, possibly as early as 2005. NATO currently commands the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and it has set up five Provincial Reconstruction Teams in northern Afghanistan, but it does not conduct combat missions like the US forces do.............</i> Nor does it appear that they are currently up to handling <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9906892.htm?1c">Germans Reject NATO-Afghan Proposal </a> <i>........POIANA BRASOV, Romania - Germany's defense minister rejected a U.S proposal to have NATO take over the U.S.-led military mission in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that his country wants to focus on stabilization. Peter Struck spoke on the opening day of a meeting of NATO defense ministers. The proposal would combine the NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan with the 18,000 strong U.S.-commanded combat mission fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida. "We are against a merger of the two mandates," Struck told German radio. "The German government sees its engagement primarily with the ... stabilization mandate." NATO currently commands the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, the Afghan capital, and it has set up five Provincial Reconstruction Teams in northern Afghanistan. Its troops do not conduct combat missions as U.S. forces do. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, had told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday that the United States wants the two missions combined under an alliance commander, possibly as early as 2005. "It's a very complicated issue, how you put these two very different military missions together," Burns said. "But there will be a number of people who will support - we will certainly support - a direction to the military leaders of the alliance to go and look at this question." Burns said he expects the alliance's military leaders to present answers at a planned February meeting of defense ministers in Nice, France. Since August 2003, NATO has run a peacekeeping mission in the Afghan capital, Kabul, separate from the U.S. combat mission. In recent months, NATO has expanded the mission into northern provinces in Afghanistan and is now seeking to increase the 8,000 troop force to move into a western sector. <b> Struck said he backed the drive to get more NATO troops to expand the peacekeeping mission, but he doubted Germany's parliament would support a change of the mandate to allow the alliance to take on the combat mission. </b> Germany is one of the largest contributors to the peacekeeping mission, with 2,500 soldiers....... ..........<b>The 26 NATO ministers opened their meeting with a debate on how to speed up decision making and modernize their militaries to prevent the delays which have dogged efforts to expand the Afghan mission. As the Cold War alliance seeks to find a new role in the post-Sept. 11 world, allies are under pressure to modernize their outdated militaries so more European troops can deploy on overseas mission. "We have less reason for satisfaction with our arrangements for marshaling forces for operations and sustaining them in the field," NATO's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the meeting.</b></i>
Iran would not be a humanitarian intervention, first off. Certainly a good leader increases the odds of cooperation, but I'm not a GW supporter, nor is that relevant to whether or not action WILL BE forthcoming on Iran from the Euros. Kerry or GW will not change that. And even Clinton could not get cooperation from the Euros in their backyard (Bosnia, Kosovo) until we threated to go it alone (actually the UK backed us to be fair). Agree Iraq's case was less clear cut, which hurts your position even more. In EVEN MORE clear cut cases, the 'global consensus' to act did not emerge. My support was not based on the SOTU simply because I factored in the inherent unreliability of intelligence. My support was based (as far as WMDs go) on Saddam's continued interference in inspections. Rationally, why do that when faced with invasion? Makes no sense and led me to believe the only rational explanation was that he was hiding WMD programs. Not sure why this is relevant to the discussion at hand. But I think its foolhardy to assume that once he regained the income for oil and sanctions were removed then he would not have reemerged as a threat. And as I've said before, containment brings its own set of problems, as in 9/11. I agree Bush did a terrible job. Not sure what that gets you. No way was the UN going to remove Saddam anyway. Not with Kerry or anyone else. And there is NO indication they will take non-economic action against Iran, and NO reason to believe that will change.
How we got them there is part of leadership, that's what it's all about. The end result is that the Europeans played a significant role which they should have. I also agree that they should have acted sooner, and without prompting, but they didn't. As far as waiting for global consensus, that is never what John Kerry or anyone that I know of proposed. The idea is that the evidence and leadership will be so strong that there will be a global consensus, not that global consensus determines when and when not to take action.
