Thought we were going it alone
Spain is pulling out of Iraq and Poland has threatened to. But I thought this was a unilateral, US only operation. I thought that because that’s what the press and certain politicos tell me. Unilateral, my ass.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 19th, 2004 at 2:50 pm
Poland’s president today said the troops were staying.
March 19th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
Well then your ass must be unilateral.
Look at the number of troops involved as a percentage of the whole. Those nations are token presences in Iraq and you know it. By your definition, an act that involves beiother the UN or NATO would be unilateral of Micronesia sent one commisary soldier. The US did not have a coalition in any meaningful sense in Iraq, and pretending otherwise is just bullshit spin so you don’t have to admit that Bush failed in his diplomacy before the war.
March 19th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Kevin, something is unilateral or it isn’t. Unlike multilateral, which can have degrees.
And if these are token presences, why is poland/spain’s pull out newsworthy?
March 19th, 2004 at 3:30 pm
Bush’s diplomacy failed? So 12 years and 17 UN resolutions are all his fault?
March 19th, 2004 at 3:46 pm
And if these are token presences, why is poland/spain’s pull out newsworthy?
Gee, perhaps because it means that Bush is even losing the token support he had?
March 19th, 2004 at 3:51 pm
The Poles aren’t leaving, though.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114650,00.html
March 19th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
The US did not have a coalition in any meaningful sense in Iraq
The British sent more than 20,000 troops. What are the requirements for a meaningful coalition?
March 19th, 2004 at 4:04 pm
Bush’s diplomacy failed? So 12 years and 17 UN resolutions are all his fault?
Shoot and score!
The British sent more than 20,000 troops.
with the outside assist. I love march madness.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:07 pm
In Gulf War I, the French sent less than that T, so clearly the number is less. Apparently there wasn’t a coalition then either by today’s leftist definitions.
The US has post-WW2 provided the lions share of most expeditionary forces of this nature. Even in Kosovo we did more than our share of fighting, and that was in the Europeans back yard for chrissakes.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
So are we discussing failed diplomacy when strikes would have been better?
Let me harken back to 1994, when Bill Clinton bit his lip and said “Jimmy Carter and Warren Christopher assure me the North Koreans can be trusted, and will abide by the Agreed Framework”
*at least till they admit otherwise over a year ago.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:25 pm
We are seeing why this was a coalition of the bribed. There is no resolve on the part of our coalition “partners” because their people never got behind the war in Iraq, only their leaders. This is different from the first gulf war and Afghanistan in that the people actually did get behind the cause at hand.
We can play semantics all that you want, but clearly Gulf War II isn’t multi-lateral, non uni-lateral, whatever as Yugoslavia, Gulf War I, or Afghanistan were.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
That should be:
We can play semantics all that you want, but clearly Gulf War II isn’t as multi-lateral, non uni-lateral, whatever as Yugoslavia, Gulf War I, or Afghanistan were.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
I can buy the whole note-quite-as-multilateral bit but saying it’s unilateral is quite dishonest.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:41 pm
I don’t really see the point in arguing over unilateral vs. multilateral. For one thing, I haven’t seen the opposition present an objective definition of “multilateral” that will satisfy them.
If something’s the right thing to do, it’s right even if nobody agrees with you. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong even a multilateral coalition agrees with you.
I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, for many reasons not related to NBC weapons. My position on this is not contingent upon how many foreign heads of state agree. Furthermore, while I’m not really interested in discussing it with the resident self-appointed Logic Police, they should free to show off their prowess at attacking the Position, and not the Man.
March 19th, 2004 at 6:00 pm
Thib..we can argue back and forth as to whether the war was the right thing to do, buts lets go beyond that and say that some people thought it was a good idea and some were against it.
If something’s the right thing to do, it’s right even if nobody agrees with you. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong even a multilateral coalition agrees with you.
Agreed, with a caveat. Going to war requires support of the people. The people need to be willing to take casualties and make the sacrifices necessary. To me, this was one of the problems with Yugoslavia. The support of the American people wasn’t there, and you had a campaign of aerial bombing that killed a lot of innocent people because we didn’t want any American casualties no matter what.
The same holds for this war. There is more popular support in America, so the American people have been willing to take casualties and probably won’t buckle if there is a terrorist strike at home. However, taxcuts have undermined the fact that the American people haven’t been asked to pay for this war financially.
Internationally, there is little support for the war, which is why the coalition is starting to unravel. The majority of people in Europe never wanted to make the sacrifices because they never saw the case for war. However, they do see the need to fight for other causes including Afghanistan and the Basque separatists and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary.
March 19th, 2004 at 6:02 pm
SU..all political rhetoric is dishonest…unless of course it’s “nuanced” in which case that’s worse.
March 19th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Bush’s diplomacy failed? So 12 years and 17 UN resolutions are all his fault?
Are you implying that the UN failed? From what I’ve gathered, they were able to destroy all of Saddam’s WMD. I would hardly call that failure. Unless you think that there was some other purpose.
March 19th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Go ahead and tell any Australian that their presence was *token*. Go on. I promise to visit you in the hospital afterwards.
March 19th, 2004 at 11:59 pm
Mike:
You’re back! Hooray!
March 20th, 2004 at 12:37 am
Internationally, there is little support for the war, which is why the coalition is starting to unravel.
I think it’s way too premature to think the coalition is “unraveling”. If not for the terrorist attack in Spain, there’s a very good chance we’re not even talking about this today (although the polls were neck and neck even before the attack, the new party might have won anyway, but may not have actually gone through with pulling out. The attack pushed it over the edge) and Poland likely would’ve had no reason to say anything at all.
Shaky? yes. Unraveling? Not by a long shot.