World Opinion and Bush's War

[Robin Goodfellow]

There seems to be a refusal by many Americans to acknowledge the extent to which our impending attack on a sovereign nation is isolating our country. Much of this is the result of deliberate manipulation of opinion carried on by Iraq hawks on Foxnews and on radio talk shows across the nation.

I can understand the argument that isolation doesn’t matter, although I disagree. But it’s harder to understand the argument that isolation isn’t taking place.

The American media is filled with “explanations” as to what there is about “Old Europe” that perversely impels them to oppose us. But the simple fact is that most people in the world oppose us, and the real issue is why the American public has come to accept illegal aggression as legitimate foreign policy.

At least one of the reasons for this can be seen here:

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/807328p-5742320c.html



In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about U.S. intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding al-Qaida. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

Similarly, this article:

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html

points out that 44 percent of Americans believe that most or some of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, and 77 percent either believe that or don’t know whether it's true. (None of the hijackers were Iraqi.)

Although Bush has twisted the arms of about a dozen or so countries around the globe, all indications are that world opinion remains solidly against us. This is true even of our staunchest allies: the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, and Japan. And it’s generally true of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and the Americas, including Mexico and Canada.

Here’s a good article summarizing this:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/071/oped/Marching_toward_war_as_the_world_says_no+.shtml

Iran may have more reason to oppose Iraq than any other country except possibly Kuwait. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer recently looked at the reasons Iranians oppose us -- in large part because they know first-hand the horror of war. To most Americans, war is an abstraction that can almost casually be brought on -- as long as it’s somewhere else. Here’s an excerpt from the NewsHour transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/iran_3-6.html



PRES. MOHAMMAD KHATAMI (Translated): Why are we against war with Iraq? Why are we against a military invasion? We have been harmed by Iraq more than anyone else. Saddam's first chemical weapons were tested on our soldiers and our nation. We have been harmed by Saddam's regime, but we oppose a military invasion of Iraq, because the impending threat of war is much more dangerous than the dictatorship.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The president is a reformist in the Iranian political context, but on this subject, there is agreement among reformists and conservatives alike. Javad Larijani is deputy chief justice and a central member of the conservative camp.

JAVAD LARIJANI: I should tell you very frankly that in no way we have any sympathy with Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime. For us, the removal of this regime is the best news, not only for Iran, but for all the countries in the region. But the point is that, how it should be done and what will be the aftermath. We are very much afraid that American total reliance on force may not be the suitable way.

SAMIMEH PAJOHI (Translated): There are Shiites living in Iraq. We feel this war would inflict the most damage on the Shiites.

WOMAN ( Translated ): America, and other countries, made Saddam powerful. They gave him the weapons he now has. Now they want to disarm him. They made him powerful. The victims caught in the middle of this mess are the Iraqi people.


Bush’s arm-twisting is the reason there isn’t more opposition by governments. Here are some articles that help explain why America is increasingly seen as a bully that runs roughshod over the views and interests of the rest of the world. Bush makes up his mind to attack for reasons largely having to do with oil and Israel, only reluctantly going to the UN. And even that is purely to try to override enough opposition to scrape by a Security Council vote in order to provide window dressing for what he'll do anyway:

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,905753,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1504-2003Mar9.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47303-2003Mar5.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=hartung
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

And this article makes an important related point about how Bush’s policies undermine democracy in the Middle East:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-telhami10mar10,1,3203481.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions



As we pursue policies that are highly unpopular in the Middle East, we ask, indeed insist, that governments support these policies.

To accomplish this, those governments unleash their security forces to prevent dissent, to contain public demonstrations, to limit freedom of speech, to disrupt any potential organization from undermining their stability. In the case of war in Iraq, the regimes fear that passions could be inflamed if there are many civilian casualties, so they plan ahead with particular ruthlessness.


Note: In case anyone cares, I’m definitely going to rejoin the Contrived Gospels thread when I get a chance. For the moment, though, what little time I have is being co-opted by the Iraq issue.

Robin Goodfellow

[$cirisme]

I guess it's a good thing for Bush that's he elected by Americans since his job is to protect those same Americans.

:ahem:

[Ryokan]

Most middle easterners feel that Israelis, not Al Queda, caused 9/11. The public, American or not, is usually very uneducated.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 07:01 AM
Robin Godfellow:

There seems to be a refusal by many Americans to acknowledge the extent to which our impending attack on a sovereign nation is isolating our country.


Maybe they'll change their minds when the Iraqi people welcome the coalition forces.



Much of this is the result of deliberate manipulation of opinion carried on by Iraq hawks on Foxnews and on radio talk shows across the nation.


While those who watch CNN, ABC, etcetera are those who are facing reality. Gotcha. Okay. :wink:



I can understand the argument that isolation doesn’t matter, although I disagree. But it’s harder to understand the argument that isolation isn’t taking place.


Depends on what you mean by "isolation", I guess. Sure, there's a fresh wave of anti-Americanism of late. The motivations of the naysayers in the UN is easy enough to explain, and the protestors whom I have heard attempt to explain their opposition make clear that they don't have a serious alternative to the use of force (I should get you to explain what you mean by "coercive" inspections, Robin--did Iraq give the okay for those?:smile:).



The American media is filled with “explanations” as to what there is about “Old Europe” that perversely impels them to oppose us. But the simple fact is that most people in the world oppose us, and the real issue is why the American public has come to accept illegal aggression as legitimate foreign policy.


That's probably because US aggression has had demonstrable benefits in the past, such as the calming of the Bosnian conflict--which brings us back to the ready explanations for European disdain for American activism on which the UN has given no stamp of approval.



At least one of the reasons for this can be seen here:

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/807328p-5742320c.html


I find it ironic that the article admits that Bush didn't say something but that an impression was left anyway. The article doesn't come right out and say that (Bush has) the US is attacking Iraq in retribution for 9/11, but gives that impression--don't you think?



Similarly, this article:

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html

points out that 44 percent of Americans believe that most or some of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, and 77 percent either believe that or don’t know whether it's true. (None of the hijackers were Iraqi.)


Why is public opinion on the matter relevant, iyo? It could pass as an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, but I'd like to hear the explanation in your own words.



Although Bush has twisted the arms of about a dozen or so countries around the globe, all indications are that world opinion remains solidly against us. This is true even of our staunchest allies: the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, and Japan. And it’s generally true of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and the Americas, including Mexico and Canada.

Here’s a good article summarizing this:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/071/oped/Marching_toward_war_as_the_world_says_no+.shtml


"The marchers spoke for the people. They had heard American leaders scream ''weapons of mass destruction'' for months."
What's this? A hint of bias?
:rofl:

Let's say the there were 10,000,000 people out protesting the impending war. How does this reflect public opinion worldwide?
Are all 10 million free from the disinformation of the benighted US souls who think that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?
What do these writers think "unilateral" means, anyway?



Iran may have more reason to oppose Iraq than any other country except possibly Kuwait. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer recently looked at the reasons Iranians oppose us -- in large part because they know first-hand the horror of war. To most Americans, war is an abstraction that can almost casually be brought on -- as long as it’s somewhere else. Here’s an excerpt from the NewsHour transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/iran_3-6.html


The Iraqi government knows that they could be next, and the average Iranian probably still gets a slanted pov on the news. The new generation of Iranians is more savvy about the world, which is why Iran may not need to have external coercion toward reform.



Bush’s arm-twisting is the reason there isn’t more opposition by governments. Here are some articles that help explain why America is increasingly seen as a bully that runs roughshod over the views and interests of the rest of the world. Bush makes up his mind to attack for reasons largely having to do with oil and Israel, only reluctantly going to the UN.


Baloney. If we want Iraqi oil, all we have to do is get the sanctions lifted and start buying.
Cheaper than a war.



And even that is purely to try to override enough opposition to scrape by a Security Council vote in order to provide window dressing for what he'll do anyway:

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,905753,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1504-2003Mar9.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47303-2003Mar5.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=hartung
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html


I would suggest that encouraging UN support of military action against Iraq could be seen as the natural outgrowth of Bush's attempts to build worldwide support for the elimination of terrorism. It's a pity that a few nations are letting the world political stage distract them from that worthy goal.



And this article makes an important related point about how Bush’s policies undermine democracy in the Middle East:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-telhami10mar10,1,3203481.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions


The LA Times article "makes" its point with precious little evidence in support. It simply assumes the garnering assistance from authoritarian states undermines democracy. Tell the people of Iraq how the liberation of their country from Hussein will undermine democracy.

[flipper]

Ochre:


Baloney. If we want Iraqi oil, all we have to do is get the sanctions lifted and start buying.
Cheaper than a war.


Except that that would be seen as backing down and as a tacit vindication of Saddam Hussein. I can really see the conservative right going for that, can't you?

Furthermore, it would open up Iraq's markets to unbridled trade in weapons, and I very much doubt Hussein would be buying much from American suppliers, what do you think? Don't you think he would favor those who showed him support during sanctions (*cough* the French *cough*).

There is, currently, enough oil on the market. But the US doesn't have a solid hold on any of that in the mid-east. Well, not yet anyway.

[Socrates]

Who cares about world opinion, if this means the UN? This is a huge waste of space, run by murderous despots with appalling human rights violations. And who cares about the opinion of modern appeasers and terrorists?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:03 AM
flipper:

Ochre:



Except that that would be seen as backing down and as a tacit vindication of Saddam Hussein. I can really see the conservative right going for that, can't you?


So, at least you're willing to consider that oil isn't the only issue (if it's one at all with respect to waging war)?
:smile:

Bush could claim that he's going along with the all-wise UN.
:rofl:



Furthermore, it would open up Iraq's markets to unbridled trade in weapons, and I very much doubt Hussein would be buying much from American suppliers, what do you think?


Why not? You doubt his ability to appreciate value? The French are the ones likely to object to Iraq purchasing arms from the US, no?



Don't you think he would favor those who showed him support during sanctions (*cough* the French *cough*).


Ah, we could "twist his arm" and end the sanctions in return for weapons purchases.
It's not about oil.



There is, currently, enough oil on the market. But the US doesn't have a solid hold on any of that in the mid-east. Well, not yet anyway.

Ever heard of Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

Maybe you mean something sinister when you say "solid hold", I guess.

[wildbrumby]

Yea, American Imperalism. The United Empire of America!

[Dr T]

Just my own thoughts based on the people I see day to day in the UK.

There was already a lot of anti americanism around. Those people that were already anti american have leaped onto the war in Iraq to push their anti americanism as much as possible.

There are also a lot of people who recognise that America is doing what has to be done. Often wishing there was another way, but accepting that no alternative was ever given by the 'anti war' groups. These people are in the majority, but tend to be out shouted by group 1.

I would guess that the majority of people couldn't care less one way or another, and I doubt this will change.

I actually don't see any evidence of a shift in the way that people view America. What I do see is that the anti americans are very vocal as they believe that they have found a cause to beat the Americans up with.

Not sure if this helps or not, just thought I would throw it in.

[AtheistArchon]

There are also a lot of people who recognise that America is doing what has to be done. Often wishing there was another way, but accepting that no alternative was ever given by the 'anti war' groups.

- Are you talking about Afghanistan, or Iraq?

[wildbrumby]

There are also a lot of people who recognise that America is doing what has to be done.

Why does invading an innocent nation that has NEVER threatened us or attacked us in any way have to be done? Let's look at it. No WMDs. No link to terrorism, so why are we over there? If we're just over there to kick Saddam out, let's go kick out a few other "evil dictators" (which I'm not convinced Saddam is). Hey, what about China. Oh, and let's not forget many of the African nations. Come on Bush, what about a world war eh? See where his reasoning leads. So who's next? Iran, North Korea.....?

[themuzicman]

Seems to me that "World Opinion" made WW II much deadlier, including drawing the US into it, and "World Opinion" causes us to refrain from getting Hussein in 1991, and "World Opinion" cause Vietnam to be a debacle, rather than a fairly easy war to win.

So, I think you can see what I think of "World Opinion." (Besides, the rest of the world ain't doin' that hot anyway.)

Michael

[Tickle Me Goody]

There seems to be a refusal by many Americans to acknowledge the extent to which our impending attack on a sovereign nation is isolating our country. Much of this is the result of deliberate manipulation of opinion carried on by Iraq hawks on Foxnews and on radio talk shows across the nation.........

Here’s a good article summarizing this:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/071/oped/Marching_toward_war_as_the_world_says_no+.shtml


Truth is a stranger to the Boston Globe. You were not doing too badly until you indicated that you would believe anything other than the comics or the sports page in that rag.


Goody

[Dr T]

Why does invading an innocent nation that has NEVER threatened us or attacked us in any way have to be done? Let's look at it. No WMDs. No link to terrorism, so why are we over there? If we're just over there to kick Saddam out, let's go kick out a few other "evil dictators" (which I'm not convinced Saddam is). Hey, what about China. Oh, and let's not forget many of the African nations. Come on Bush, what about a world war eh? See where his reasoning leads. So who's next? Iran, North Korea.....?

Your post is very misleading.

As Kay's report showed there was plenty of work being done on WMD programs, so finding none is either lucky because you got there in time or unlucky because what had been produced had been shipped elsewhere. Time will tell.

There is no doubt, and never has been, that WMD programs were on going. Blix's report to the UN was clear that Iraq hadn't fulfilled it's ceasefire obligations in this respect, and the Kay's report months ago and his recent work have also confirmed that the WMD programs were still on going.

The greatest danger to the American people is a link between an Islamic terrorist group (doesn't have to be AQ) and a rogue state supplying WMDs.

There are plenty of documented links between terrorists and Iraq, just not AQ. Does it matter to the dead which Islamic terrorist group delivers the payroll?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

A couple of points.

1. There was pervasive int'l opposition to GWII. I live and work in a country where nearly everyone was against the war.

2. This can be attributed to how the Bush Administration courted world-opinion for the regime-change.

3. The existence of ongoing WMD-related programs did indeed mean that there was a need for int'l leadership to do something about it. They didn't mean that it was imperative for us to make a regime-change asap, with or without broader int'l support.

4. Given who Saddam Hussein was and with an effective campaign plus proper commitments made in good-faith to show that the US wasn't in it for the oil, we probably could have built up int'l support for threatening regime-change. With the majority of the world behind his ouster, Saddam couldn't have deluded himself into thinking that his troops could inflict sufficient casualties to end the war. He might have just abdicated. This would have permitted us to dedicate more troops to the much-needed stabilization of Afghanistan, which we have neglected.

dlw

[Mr. Bottlenose]

I guess it's a good thing for Bush that's he elected by Americans since his job is to protect those same Americans.

:ahem:
Whether you are serious or not, I'd like to point out that this is the same isolationist thinking that war opponents are often accused of. Isn't the US supposed to be a WORLD leader? If so, its leaders should not ignore the will of the rest of the world's citizens and leaders if it is to stay true to the words "consent of the governed".

I'd also like to point out to you, Ryokan, that the US has very low standards of education relative to the rest of the First World, so if you are going to base your rating of someone's opinion on their level of education then...well, you lose.

[Captain Ochre]

A couple of points.

1. There was pervasive int'l opposition to GWII. I live and work in a country where nearly everyone was against the war.

What's your evidence for "pervasive" international opposition to GWB, apart from your anecdotal evidence?
The UN security council predominantly supported GWB. It was a minority of three nations who vetoed the use of force against Iraq, and France hinted at an unwillingness to change their position, thus setting up France to thwart the will of the clear majority.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html



2. This can be attributed to how the Bush Administration courted world-opinion for the regime-change.

It can also be attributed to astrology, afaics.
The evidence presented for either is about equal, no?


3. The existence of ongoing WMD-related programs did indeed mean that there was a need for int'l leadership to do something about it. They didn't mean that it was imperative for us to make a regime-change asap, with or without broader int'l support.

See France, above. They've got a deal with Saddam that benefits them after sanctions are lifted.
What's going to change their minds?


4. Given who Saddam Hussein was and with an effective campaign plus proper commitments made in good-faith to show that the US wasn't in it for the oil,

Bzzt. If the UN hops on board then the whole operation can be managed by the UN including who benefits from the oil.
The UN couldn't do that because veto power was used unwisely by France.


we probably could have built up int'l support for threatening regime-change. With the majority of the world behind his ouster, Saddam couldn't have deluded himself into thinking that his troops could inflict sufficient casualties to end the war.

Who exactly was on his side apart from France and possibley Russia? How does the calculus work where heavy casualties to coalition troops force the US to end the war regardless of US intentions?
Your language is mushy to the point of being misleading, imo. Isn't it clear that the vast majority was in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein, but there was merely dispute as to how to effect the change?


He might have just abdicated. This would have permitted us to dedicate more troops to the much-needed stabilization of Afghanistan, which we have neglected.

And maybe a platoon of Sugar Plum Fairies could have covertly borne him away to exile on an uncharted island in the Pacific.
It's great to imagine, isn't it?

[Ben Franklin]

What's your evidence for "pervasive" international opposition to GWB, apart from your anecdotal evidence?



Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Cap'n ! Gimme a break ! France, Germany and Russia sent no troops for GWII. Their governments publicly opposed unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. How many countries actually sent troops in support of our agressive war ? Talk is cheap, and very few countries actually anted up...

:roll:

[Captain Ochre]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Cap'n ! Gimme a break ! France, Germany and Russia sent no troops for GWII. Their governments publicly opposed unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. How many countries actually sent troops in support of our agressive war ? Talk is cheap, and very few countries actually anted up...

:roll:

It doesn't make sense to use the amount of troops sent as an indicator of approval or disapproval of a military action.
When the Brits retook the Falkland Islands, they did it all by themselves. Does that indicate overwhelming opposition?
:hrm:

Germany offered logistical assistance to the war on Iraq.
You're right: Talk is cheap. If they were really against it, then they should not assist at all. Disagree?


United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq


Political support only
Afghanistan
Colombia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Honduras
Iceland (has no military)
Japan
Latvia (may deploy some troops)
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (has no military)
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Palau (has no military)
Philippines
Rwanda
Singapore
Uganda
Uzbekistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

You're right. Talk is cheap, and you only anted up three nations opposed to the war effort.
The world was divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Iraq. The world was also divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Nazi Germany, ftm.

[Ben Franklin]

Sorry, Cap'n... I gotta go protect our boys in Sasebo Naval Station, Japan. It's a 12-hour shift, so I'll get back to ya tomorrow...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It doesn't make sense to use the amount of troops sent as an indicator of approval or disapproval of a military action.
When the Brits retook the Falkland Islands, they did it all by themselves. Does that indicate overwhelming opposition?
:hrm:

Germany offered logistical assistance to the war on Iraq.
You're right: Talk is cheap. If they were really against it, then they should not assist at all. Disagree?

No, leaders can support the US despite that most of their citizens were against it. I can tell you from living in Latin America that almost everyone was against the war, here. I went to Britain and the same was true there and I talked with many Europeans and the same would be there. I also have many friends in Asia and popular sentiment was generally against the war there? What does that leave us? Africa?

I do think that the burden of proof on this one would fall on your shoulders and the countries that did joing the coalition of the willing did so because of their leadership and probably promise of advantages in the post-war contracts. Now that isn't a proof, but it does establish that countries providing some support from different regions of the world doesn't mean that their was popular support at home.



United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq


Political support only
Afghanistan
Colombia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Honduras
Iceland (has no military)
Japan
Latvia (may deploy some troops)
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (has no military)
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Palau (has no military)
Philippines
Rwanda
Singapore
Uganda
Uzbekistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

You're right. Talk is cheap, and you only anted up three nations opposed to the war effort.
The world was divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Iraq. The world was also divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Nazi Germany, ftm.

There was some debate, due to Hussein's past, but I've heard nothing that supports the notion that people were gungho in support of Bush's preemption of Iraq.

Money does talk and the US's willingness to spend on Iraq certainly did enlist more support but that isn't what is in dispute in this thread.

dlw

[Captain Ochre]

No, leaders can support the US despite that most of their citizens were against it.

Okay, so you appear to be narrowing your claim of "pervasive" international opposition to public opinion, rather than that of policymakers.
That's a significant clarification of your meaning.


I can tell you from living in Latin America that almost everyone was against the war, here. I went to Britain and the same was true there and I talked with many Europeans and the same would be there.

My British acquaintances maintain that the Brits were mostly behind Bush, but that the opposition just happened to be more vocal.


I also have many friends in Asia and popular sentiment was generally against the war there? What does that leave us? Africa?

It leaves us wondering what the opinions of people who probably don't know the relevant facts and who haven't considered the likely consequences of inaction have to do with whether or not the war was actually a good idea.
It also leaves us wondering how accurate your first-person polling data is, ftm.


I do think that the burden of proof on this one would fall on your shoulders and the countries that did joing the coalition of the willing did so because of their leadership and probably promise of advantages in the post-war contracts.

I'd have that burden of proof if I had made any sort of claim that had anything to do with that (which I haven't).
Advantages in post-war contracts are a valid consideration, afaics, not that we should allow such consideration to distract us from Iraq's failure to abide by their end of a ceasefire agreement for over 10 years running.

Meanwhile, it would still seem to be up to you to establish the relevance of potentially uniformed man-on-the-street world opinion.


Now that isn't a proof, but it does establish that countries providing some support from different regions of the world doesn't mean that their was popular support at home.

Right, but we keep running into the question of how informed the opposition happens to be.
Is it safe to assume that the average Joe is better informed regarding international affairs than are his nation's leaders?


There was some debate, due to Hussein's past, but I've heard nothing that supports the notion that people were gungho in support of Bush's preemption of Iraq.

Appeal to ignorance noted, as is the fact that there is no claim on that table that would make your observation relevant.
It's a nice strawman waiting to happen, though.


Money does talk and the US's willingness to spend on Iraq certainly did enlist more support but that isn't what is in dispute in this thread.

Let's just forget that France, Germany and Russia were Saddam Hussein's business partners, shall we? Let's just focus on the evil that is Bush.
:ahem:

I could go around in circles with you Libs all day. You don't seem to get a clue as to how to present an argument that is based on reason.
I'm going to finish my replies to John Powell regarding our formal debate from the end of last year.
Rejoice, there's a window of opportunity to spread liberal disinformation without as much opposition.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

What's your evidence for "pervasive" international opposition to GWB, apart from your anecdotal evidence?
The UN security council predominantly supported GWB. It was a minority of three nations who vetoed the use of force against Iraq, and France hinted at an unwillingness to change their position, thus setting up France to thwart the will of the clear majority.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

They supported GWB on what? That there should be additional inspections and a buildup to threaten regime-change if Iraq didn't cooperate with inspections. However, the issue I believe was the timeline.

As for "evidence", as mentioned before I doubt there was any country with popular support for GWII last year besides the US and that was because we believed that Iraq's WMDs posed an immediate security threat to us.


It can also be attributed to astrology, afaics.
The evidence presented for either is about equal, no?

Except that given we've been going over this for such a long period, why does one need to present evidence over how the US misconducted its diplomacy? Go back and review Tom Friedman's articles from the past year and a half to get more evidence. He does a good job of contrasting the diplomacy job done by GWB's crew with that of his father. Now France's leadership is at fault some and the monetary incentives of maintaining the status quo did present some barriers no doubt, but there were better ways to deal with some opposition than referring to our opponents as "Old Europe".


See France, above. They've got a deal with Saddam that benefits them after sanctions are lifted.
What's going to change their minds?

Some parts of France benefit, not all. One can turn popular opinion away from the direction the political-economic elites of a country favor.


Bzzt. If the UN hops on board then the whole operation can be managed by the UN including who benefits from the oil.
The UN couldn't do that because veto power was used unwisely by France.


If we had everyone else and France vetoed we could just go on with a much wider coalition of the willing and defacto rules that would emulate the UN in many respects. The UN rules for the security council are outdated for the Post-Cold-War world. One way to get around them is to ignore them. That way there will have to be changes eventually, since it does help to have the official rules match what holds in practice to a greater extent.



Who exactly was on his side apart from France and possibley Russia? How does the calculus work where heavy casualties to coalition troops force the US to end the war regardless of US intentions?
Your language is mushy to the point of being misleading, imo. Isn't it clear that the vast majority was in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein, but there was merely dispute as to how to effect the change?


Many wanted more sanctions and inspections and were concerned about the post-war stability of Iraq. Many just didn't trust the US's intentions. Some were just against war, period.

My point is that, given time and a smart advertising campaign and diplomatic strategy, these reasons could've been overcome and, given that WMD-seeking activities are not as serious as actual stockpiles of WMDs, we could have afforded the wait and spent our troops productively doing more to consolidate power behind Kandahar's gov't in Afghanistan.


And maybe a platoon of Sugar Plum Fairies could have covertly borne him away to exile on an uncharted island in the Pacific.
It's great to imagine, isn't it?

If there was int'l solidarity then his troops' ability to inflict enough damage to engender enough domestic opposition against the war would be curtailed. It would be either we make regime-change and make you face a war-crimes trial or you accept exile in some country.

It could've worked.

dlw

[Captain Ochre]

They supported GWB on what?

A resolution subsequent to 1441 that specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq.
That resolution was defeated the French-led minority.

Given enough time, they could claim that the weapons inspectors weren't turning up anything. Then they could gradually turn international opinion in favor of easing sanctions against Iraq and then they, Germany, and Russia could collect on their sugardaddy contracts from Saddam.

It could have worked.
:wink:

Take off those rose-colored 20/20 hindsight glasses, won't you?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Okay, so you appear to be narrowing your claim of "pervasive" international opposition to public opinion, rather than that of policymakers.
That's a significant clarification of your meaning.

That would be the meaning commonly associated with World Opinion, afaict.


My British acquaintances maintain that the Brits were mostly behind Bush, but that the opposition just happened to be more vocal.

I suppose we'd need to see the polls to tell for sure. I'm sure most Latin-Americans or Asians were to poor and ignorant to care for the most part.


It leaves us wondering what the opinions of people who probably don't know the relevant facts and who haven't considered the likely consequences of inaction have to do with whether or not the war was actually a good idea.
It also leaves us wondering how accurate your first-person polling data is, ftm.

I agree most protesters didn't care about learning the relevant facts and were quite uniformed about the options and consequences of inaction. I myself played devils advocate here in MX for many.

But I can attest to the solidarity that existed here in MX against the war and the articles I read about similar opposition that existed elsewhere in Latin America.

My point is there were other ways to court world-opinion and answer the protests of many. One could have just accepted additional inspections or started propagandizing the world on why regime-change would be desirable in Iraq.


I'd have that burden of proof if I had made any sort of claim that had anything to do with that (which I haven't).
Advantages in post-war contracts are a valid consideration, afaics, not that we should allow such consideration to distract us from Iraq's failure to abide by their end of a ceasefire agreement for over 10 years running.

Well, I misunderstood you. The question is whether or not winning allies through post-war contracts is sufficient support for leading a regime-change and also whether or not that was the best we could do given the situation.


Meanwhile, it would still seem to be up to you to establish the relevance of potentially uniformed man-on-the-street world opinion.

Legitimacy. If it is a contract-driven deal popularly supported by one country's population because they were told and believed that their nat'l security depended on immediate regime change and many other leaders acting relatively autonomous from their constituencies then it looks more like Dubya is after Iraq's oil or revenge for trying to assassinate Daddy.

Popular support leads to more domestic pressures to provide political/economic/military support. This defrays the cost and it makes the outcome more politically inevitable since Iraq inflicting casualties on coalition troops is less likely to increase domestic political pressures against continuing the war.


Right, but we keep running into the question of how informed the opposition happens to be.
Is it safe to assume that the average Joe is better informed regarding international affairs than are his nation's leaders?

Course not. But we would benefit from greater int'l support for a regime-change in Iraq and that is less costly to us if we can generate more popular support from the people of the other countries.


Appeal to ignorance noted, as is the fact that there is no claim on that table that would make your observation relevant.
It's a nice strawman waiting to happen, though.

Elitism noted and the neglect of the importance of int'l politics and propaganda apparent.


Let's just forget that France, Germany and Russia were Saddam Hussein's business partners, shall we? Let's just focus on the evil that is Bush. :ahem:

Let's just forget that France, Germany and Russia have many people in them, most of which were not economically benefitting that much from Saddam. Let's just rationalize the way that the BushAdmin went about trying to make a regime-change in Iraq.


I could go around in circles with you Libs all day. You don't seem to get a clue as to how to present an argument that is based on reason.
I'm going to finish my replies to John Powell regarding our formal debate from the end of last year.
Rejoice, there's a window of opportunity to spread liberal disinformation without as much opposition.

Much rejoicing and we haven't gone around in circles. We dispute the facts quite often and you do tend to appeal to the view that it was all written in the stars quite often as well.

good riddance,
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

A resolution subsequent to 1441 that specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq.
That resolution was defeated the French-led minority.

Given enough time, they could claim that the weapons inspectors weren't turning up anything. Then they could gradually turn international opinion in favor of easing sanctions against Iraq and then they, Germany, and Russia could collect on their sugardaddy contracts from Saddam.

It could have worked.
:wink:

Take off those rose-colored 20/20 hindsight glasses, won't you?

So long as the only rationale presented for regime-change was Iraq having stock-piles of WMDs, it could have worked, but we needn't have kept to that as the basis for regime-change?

Yes-no?
dlw

[Noesis]

So long as the only rationale presented for regime-change was Iraq having stock-piles of WMDs, it could have worked, but we needn't have kept to that as the basis for regime-change?

Yes-no?
dlwPaul Wolfowicz, the Undersecretary of Global Domination in the DOD, who I typically believe honestly believes what he says, despite the fact that I completely reject his world view. He is generally quite forthright about his aims, and said publicly that WMDs was the rationale all parties in the administration were agreed was sufficient grounds for war and grounds the American people would support. He, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have always believed regime change sufficient justification. Powell and a few lesser lights were the dissenters to regime change as sufficient cause.

So whether you believe this is an oil grab conspiracy or a spectacular failure of our intelligence gathering and analysis and the Administration genuinely feared a mushroom cloud over Washington, you should accept that much of this administration was, as Paul O'Neill revealed, on a path for invasion long before the WMD issue was decided upon as sufficient cause for invasion, and this was nothing more than the excuse they were looking for. These were the same men picking and choosing which analysts to believe and which to ignore,and we all know from this website that everyone picks out the information that supports their viewpoint.

If the Bush team believed Saddam was building the bomb, despite all the caveats to the contrary, then you have to say they did the right thing. But the fact that they presented computer generations as though they were photos at the UN, the fact that they put the yellowcake story in the SOTU when our own people told them it was a fake, the fact that they played up the drones, when our own Air Force and the Brits both said it wasn't so, all indicates to me that they knew they had no case and weren't above lying to achieve their ends. If they genuinely believed the WMDs were there and a real threat and immediate threat, then they were badly mistaken and our international policy will suffer the result for years, and a lot fo good people died for their mistake. But I can forgive a honest blunder. I can't forgive the manipulation of the Congress and the public, neither of whom can perform their proper funciton in a democracy working from intentional falsehoods.

I'm sick and tired of being lied to by our leaders. They lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin and dragged thousands of our young men to their deaths and permanent injury, some my friends and family members, as well as killing hundreds of thousands of people who were fighting for their homeland against an invader, i.e. us. Now the lies of our leaders have us in more quagmire, that if they had tried to sell us purely for regime change we'd have refused.

The problem with trying to remake the world in our image is that people who are minding their own business, who have as much right to grow up, get married, raise a family and grow old in peace as anyone, lose thier limbs and their lives for the ambitions of the powerful and wealthy, and in every country, our own included, it is not the children of the leaders that are sacrificed. It's unjust.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Never mind that in the case of Iraq, enough lives were being lost under Hussein that the net-effect of the war could be positive?

I s'pose if enough people were deadset againt regime-change, unless we ourselves are at risk, then misinformation may have been the only way to get support.

I don't see making regime-change as trying to remake the world in our image, which doesn't mean that we wouldn't be doing a good thing for Iraq and the rest of the middle-east in setting up a separation of Mosque and State, understood as their autonomy from each other.

I recommend the video, "Uncle Saddam" for a view of who was Saddam Hussein.

And, there was sound intelligence that Hussein was seeking WMDs, which was in violation of UN treaties. That and the many Iraqis murdered and the possibility of fighting terrorism longer-term by fostering more democracy in the Middle East all made pretty good rationales for seeking to build an int'l support for threatening regime-change if Saddam Hussein didn't abdicate.

Its a matter of int'l governance. We need leadership that can act, unlike the current UN setup, and we need a willingness to use force/saber-rattling on some of the worse cases.

Now, I'm thinking someone would reply, "what about the many other terrible leaders elsewhere where there is no oil?" We can consider something similar for them in the future. It would help if we developed a way to develop int'l solidarity/agreement and this proved effective in coercing a change in behavior or abdication so regime-change is not needed very often, but the possibility of improving int'l governance is greater now that the Cold War is over, so long as there are checks and balances against particular gov'ts and MNCs.

dlw

[wildbrumby]

Ok, let's think for a moment about WMDs. So...suppose that Iraq DID have WMDs. What does that prove? Chine, North Korea, France, America(ah hem!), Iran, Pakistan, and Russia also have these openly. Why don't we go and attack them? Since when has having WMDs been unlawful by international law? Remember, Saddam has NEVER attacked or has been a serious threat to the USA! So it's about the same as Pakistan. Both have anti-US setiments in them, and at least we know that Pakistan has nukes. So, what's the problem? Why are we in Iraq? If it's to oust Saddam, let's bring that across the line and oust a few other "nasty" dictators. If it's to free the Iraqi people, why not go and "free" some others? If it's to stop intenational terrorism, let's go and attack some other countries that have no link to terrorism. If it's to ban nukes and WMD, well, let's attack all the previous mentioned countries. See what I mean? Also, if it's over oil, why doesn't Bush get it the proper way by fair trade instead of at gunpoint? I really crack up at the following by Terry Jones. Think about it.



I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really [mad] with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

[Ryokan]

Ok, let's think for a moment about WMDs. So...suppose that Iraq DID have WMDs. What does that prove? Chine, North Korea, France, America(ah hem!), Iran, Pakistan, and Russia also have these openly. Why don't we go and attack them? Since when has having WMDs been unlawful by international law? Remember, Saddam has NEVER attacked or has been a serious threat to the USA! So it's about the same as Pakistan. Both have anti-US setiments in them, and at least we know that Pakistan has nukes. So, what's the problem? Why are we in Iraq? If it's to oust Saddam, let's bring that across the line and oust a few other "nasty" dictators. If it's to free the Iraqi people, why not go and "free" some others? If it's to stop intenational terrorism, let's go and attack some other countries that have no link to terrorism. If it's to ban nukes and WMD, well, let's attack all the previous mentioned countries. See what I mean? Also, if it's over oil, why doesn't Bush get it the proper way by fair trade instead of at gunpoint? I really crack up at the following by Terry Jones. Think about it.

What do you think the world would be like if every unstable, tin pot dictatorship, rather than just the great powers, had nukes? Do you think we'd be safer. Think about that! It may be hypocritical to want to prevent proliferation, but if it prevents a nuclear war between Ethiopia and the Sudan, or terrorist nuking New York, I am willing to indulge in hypocricy.

[Noesis]

What do you think the world would be like if every unstable, tin pot dictatorship, rather than just the great powers, had nukes? Do you think we'd be safer. Think about that! It may be hypocritical to want to prevent proliferation, but if it prevents a nuclear war between Ethiopia and the Sudan, or terrorist nuking New York, I am willing to indulge in hypocricy.

Let's get some perspective here. The number one, hands down winner in the business of propping up tin pot dictators is the United States. Look at the School of the Americas alumni and get off your high horse. Our government has always happily supported tin pot dictators who we can use and still does. We've trained thousands of them at taxpayer expense. We were happy with Saddam until he invaded Kuwait. If he hadn't he'd still be our good buddy.

[Ryokan]

Let's get some perspective here. The number one, hands down winner in the business of propping up tin pot dictators is the United States. Look at the School of the Americas alumni and get off your high horse. Our government has always happily supported tin pot dictators who we can use and still does. We've trained thousands of them at taxpayer expense. We were happy with Saddam until he invaded Kuwait. If he hadn't he'd still be our good buddy.
I agree the US has supported many dictators because we are afraid of communists and or stability. But That is really unimportant? Would the US be safer if those dictators, and or the ones that hate us, had nukes? I already acknowledged I will embrace hypocrisy over nuclear hoilocaust. So what is your answer?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Ok, let's think for a moment about WMDs. So...suppose that Iraq DID have WMDs. What does that prove? Chine, North Korea, France, America(ah hem!), Iran, Pakistan, and Russia also have these openly. Why don't we go and attack them? Since when has having WMDs been unlawful by international law? Remember, Saddam has NEVER attacked or has been a serious threat to the USA! So it's about the same as Pakistan. Both have anti-US setiments in them, and at least we know that Pakistan has nukes. So, what's the problem? Why are we in Iraq? If it's to oust Saddam, let's bring that across the line and oust a few other "nasty" dictators. If it's to free the Iraqi people, why not go and "free" some others? If it's to stop intenational terrorism, let's go and attack some other countries that have no link to terrorism. If it's to ban nukes and WMD, well, let's attack all the previous mentioned countries. See what I mean? Also, if it's over oil, why doesn't Bush get it the proper way by fair trade instead of at gunpoint? I really crack up at the following by Terry Jones. Think about it.

I agree the valid reasons for having a regime-change in Iraq are not unique to Iraq. However, I do doubt that Pakistan treats its people as Saddam treated the Iraqis. North Korea is more difficult because they have WMDs and can hold S. Korea hostage to a great extent. But yes something has to be done about it in the future.

We don't need to attack all the countries. We need a way to build int'l solidarity so that regime-changes can be threatened in a credible fashion so as to discourage the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. That will include collectively bearing the costs of regime-change and nation-building afterwards.

As for the US's history of propping up dictators as bulwarks against communism and supports for stability. I also agree that this is true. That is why there needs to be checks and balances against us in the int'l governance community. That is why the UN needs reform so it can be a more effective form of int'l governance. That is why people/groups need to continue to monitor and critique the practices of organizations like the IMF and the World Bank. That is why we need to find a detente in the cultural wars in the US so our system can be more competitive democracy, with politicians decisions to spend money on int'l excursions subject to careful scrutiny and extensive debate.

dlw

[Durthorin]

I agree the valid reasons for having a regime-change in Iraq are not unique to Iraq. However, I do doubt that Pakistan treats its people as Saddam treated the Iraqis. North Korea is more difficult because they have WMDs and can hold S. Korea hostage to a great extent. But yes something has to be done about it in the future.

We don't need to attack all the countries. We need a way to build int'l solidarity so that regime-changes can be threatened in a credible fashion so as to discourage the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. That will include collectively bearing the costs of regime-change and nation-building afterwards.

dlw
The pity is that what we have done has simply insured that any country will believe that if they want to avoid regime change.. GET a nuke.

[Noesis]

I agree the US has supported many dictators because we are afraid of communists and or stability. But That is really unimportant? Would the US be safer if those dictators, and or the ones that hate us, had nukes? I already acknowledged I will embrace hypocrisy over nuclear hoilocaust. So what is your answer?Are we prepared to assert that only we may be anuclear power? Are we willing and able to conquer the world or nuke transgressors to make that stick? That's what it will take.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The pity is that what we have done has simply insured that any country will believe that if they want to avoid regime change.. GET a nuke.

I think we may need to also develop the willingness to risk someone being nuked to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

dlw

[Captain Ochre]

I think we may need to also develop the willingness to risk someone being nuked to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

dlw

We'd need to develop the willingness to risk someone being nuked to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons, too.

This currently isn't the planet for somebody unwilling to risk the possibility of someone being nuked.

[Ryokan]

Are we prepared to assert that only we may be anuclear power? Are we willing and able to conquer the world or nuke transgressors to make that stick? That's what it will take.
No but, we can make it hard to live for people who don't accept the US's opinion. You can't do business in the world today without the US.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

We'd need to develop the willingness to risk someone being nuked to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons, too.

This currently isn't the planet for somebody unwilling to risk the possibility of someone being nuked.

True when you put it that way, it makes accepting the risk in the goal of stopping proliferation easier. Although, if it was Mexico that had nukes, I'm sure I'd have a harder time writing the above.

dlw

[Captain Ochre]

True when you put it that way, it makes accepting the risk in the goal of stopping proliferation easier. Although, if it was Mexico that had nukes, I'm sure I'd have a harder time writing the above.

dlw

Certainly, but there's also no comparison with Mexico since they're not actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and they don't have a recent history of aggression against neighbor states.

What nation that doesn't have nukes now actually needs them for self-defense?
Any nation could claim that the US presents a potential threat (since we're stronger militarily than any other nation). Does everyone need nukes therefore, to defend against the United States?

Maybe the best example of a nation with such a need is Taiwan, but I'm pretty sure that they're discouraged from acquiring nukes just like all the rest (and they'd be defending themselves from a nation apart from the US, if the stated intentions of the Chinese are to be taken at anything approaching face value).
There's no good case to be made for developing nuclear (weapons) capability at the present stage of world history--unless one intends to do something naughty with it.
That's why slapping sanctions on nations like Iraq and N. Korea is appropriate.

N. Korea left to its own devices is an economic disaster. Their potential solution to their economic plight is to invade their neighbor.
Their hoped-for insurance against recrimination from other states is the nuclear deterrent.
Got any problem with disrupting that plan?

[Ben Franklin]

No but, we can make it hard to live for people who don't accept the US's opinion. You can't do business in the world today without the US.

And just how long will that last ? The U.S. was in the pole position after WW2, and used it to great advantage. Nowadays, that's no longer the case. There are other nations just as fully developed as the U.S. America's been fighting hard just to keep up with the Jones'. All nations rise and fall (and possibly rise yet again). If the U.S. position is nothing more than bullying over and over, I don't think it will go the distance. China's tried bullying tactics with Taiwan, and it hasn't got what it wants, so why should America be any different ? European nations called Bush's bluff over GW2, so I don't think they will necessarily line up with the U.S. nuclear weapons policy, too. Every heard of New Zealand ? I believe it's government threw the American threats (over allowing nuclear vessels in its waters) back in the U.S. face, right ? Keep up this line of diplomacy, and let's how long it takes until the world starts an economic boycott of America. Money isn't everything.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Certainly, but there's also no comparison with Mexico since they're not actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and they don't have a recent history of aggression against neighbor states.

Thanks to the Monroe-doctrine, yes!


What nation that doesn't have nukes now actually needs them for self-defense?
Any nation could claim that the US presents a potential threat (since we're stronger militarily than any other nation). Does everyone need nukes therefore, to defend against the United States?

Maybe the best example of a nation with such a need is Taiwan, but I'm pretty sure that they're discouraged from acquiring nukes just like all the rest (and they'd be defending themselves from a nation apart from the US, if the stated intentions of the Chinese are to be taken at anything approaching face value).
There's no good case to be made for developing nuclear (weapons) capability at the present stage of world history--unless one intends to do something naughty with it.
That's why slapping sanctions on nations like Iraq and N. Korea is appropriate.

And Pakistan? I agree, but the pursuit of Nuclear capabilities doesn't mean that regime-change is mandated.


N. Korea left to its own devices is an economic disaster. Their potential solution to their economic plight is to invade their neighbor.
Their hoped-for insurance against recrimination from other states is the nuclear deterrent.
Got any problem with disrupting that plan?

No problem here, but some of my S. Korean and Japanese friends might have a problem with it, for understandable reasons. Though if one takes the longterm view, risking the use of nukes may just be one of the sucky-aspects of life.

dlw

[Ben Franklin]

It doesn't make sense to use the amount of troops sent as an indicator of approval or disapproval of a military action.

When the Brits retook the Falkland Islands, they did it all by themselves.

Does that indicate overwhelming opposition?

:hrm:




Ummm... we're talking about putting your money where your mouth is, right ? Right ? If you're saying check-book diplomacy is as good as sending troops, then why all the hype in the U.S. over all the times Japan did nothing BUT throw us some cash ? What a rationale...

The Brits re-took the Falklands ? Where did they take them to ? :lol:

As for overwhelming opposition, I'm sure the Brits were laughing up a storm when their ships got pounded by French Exocet missiles...

Not too shabby for a third-world country like Argentina, huh ?

:tongue:





Germany offered logistical assistance to the war on Iraq.
You're right: Talk is cheap. If they were really against it, then they should not assist at all. Disagree?




Heheheheheheh... you're a little naive about politics: promise the moon, but deliver quite a bit less. Everybody wants to be "in" as cheaply as possible. That's not commitment, that's simple game-theory, Cap'n. You fell for it !






You're right. Talk is cheap, and you only anted up three nations opposed to the war effort.

The world was divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Iraq.

The world was also divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Nazi Germany, ftm.




Ummm... only three ? As opposed to how many for ? You're claiming that international support was evident, and it wasn't. I don't need to drag out an "us" vs. "them" roster to support international opposition, because I'm not making any claims. You're really good at passing the buck !

:thumb:

The world was divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Germany... true, true, all too true... and once Hitler got enough rope, he hung himself and declared war on just about everybody. Problem solved ! There's no connection between invading Iraq & fighting Germany !

:doh:

[Captain Ochre]

Ummm... we're talking about putting your money where your mouth is, right ? Right ?

That's been mentioned, but I thought that you were trying to answer the following question:
"What's your evidence for "pervasive" international opposition to GWB, apart from your anecdotal evidence?"


If you're saying check-book diplomacy is as good as sending troops, then why all the hype in the U.S. over all the times Japan did nothing BUT throw us some cash ? What a rationale...

Japan is a poor example, since Japan is a special case:

The Japanese constitution, adopted at the end of the Second World War contains an Article 9, which provides: "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation…and that land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."

The intent of this provision, drafted by the American victors, was clear. Japan which had launched the war in the Pacific was never to rearm again. Never to pose a threat to its neighbors or to the United States. For added protection, U.S. military bases were established in Japan which had dual purposes of providing security to the region while keeping military control in Japan.
http://images.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Topol_122303,00.html

The point is that nations who do not send troops do not place themselves in opposition to a war by refraining from sending troops.


The Brits re-took the Falklands ? Where did they take them to ? :lol:

My, you're in a jovial mood. Been drinking?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=retook


As for overwhelming opposition, I'm sure the Brits were laughing up a storm when their ships got pounded by French Exocet missiles...

Not too shabby for a third-world country like Argentina, huh ?

:tongue:

Which part of your response is supposed to rebut my point that the fact that the Brits did the whole military operation themselves doesn't reflect political opposition on the part of those who gave no military assistance?
The protruding tongue?
:hrm:


Heheheheheheh... you're a little naive about politics: promise the moon, but deliver quite a bit less. Everybody wants to be "in" as cheaply as possible. That's not commitment, that's simple game-theory, Cap'n. You fell for it !

I guess it doesn't occur to you that I can use a counterexample to trip up your argument without committing to the specific application of the counterexample (as to propositional truth).
If you had been skillful enough to work your way past the countexample, you'd be moving Socratically in a direction that I wished you to move.
You weren't skillful enough, afaics, so that point is moot.


Ummm... only three ? As opposed to how many for ?

Do you know how to click on a link? I provided the answers to both questions, kiddo.


You're claiming that internationalsupport was evident, and it wasn't. I don't need to drag out an "us" vs. "them" roster to support international opposition, because I'm not making any claims. You're really good at passing the buck !

:thumb:


Yeah, right. I passed the buck by providing lists of the nations pro, con, and otherwise while you barely lifted your pinky finger to answer the question that I posed to you.
Apparently you couldn't even be bothered to see what evidence you could sift in support of your position.


The world was divided on the issue of acting aggressively against Germany... true, true, all too true... and once Hitler got enough rope, he hung himself and declared war on just about everybody. Problem solved ! There's no connection between invading Iraq & fighting Germany !

:doh:

There's a valid comparison in terms of consensus-building, however.
If you can ignore that, then there's probably plenty of other relevant stuff you can ignore.

[Ben Franklin]

I agree the US has supported many dictators because we are afraid of communists and or stability. But That is really unimportant? Would the US be safer if those dictators, and or the ones that hate us, had nukes? I already acknowledged I will embrace hypocrisy over nuclear hoilocaust. So what is your answer?

Are you saying that the world is screwed if everybody doesn't do that which is in the U.S.' s best interests ? :huh:

[Ben Franklin]

That's been mentioned, but I thought that you were trying to answer the following question:

"What's your evidence for "pervasive" international opposition to GWB, apart from your anecdotal evidence?"




OK, so you are not arguing the antithetical position for pervasive international support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. My bad... :pray:





Japan is a poor example, since Japan is a special case...

... U.S. military bases were established in Japan which had dual purposes of providing security to the region while keeping military control in Japan.




Tell me about it, that's why I'm here now. Yep, Japan is a quasi-colony, for sure. I wonder how long it'll be until they tell us to pack up and hit the road ?





Which part of your response is supposed to rebut my point that the fact that the Brits did the whole military operation themselves doesn't reflect political opposition on the part of those who gave no military assistance?
The protruding tongue?
:hrm:




Chalk it up to mutual leg-pulling. You mention something wholly un-related, and I played with it, returning the favor (quid pro quo). :hrm: to you, too !





I guess it doesn't occur to you that I can use a counterexample to trip up your argument without committing to the specific application of the counterexample (as to propositional truth).
If you had been skillful enough to work your way past the countexample, you'd be moving Socratically in a direction that I wished you to move.
You weren't skillful enough, afaics, so that point is moot.




Thanks for the belittlement. If you're gonna talk over my head, you are wasting your time just as much as mine. If you wanna educate me on my ignorance, you're gonna have to stoop lower, or just give up altogether.





Yeah, right. I passed the buck by providing lists of the nations pro, con, and otherwise while you barely lifted your pinky finger to answer the question that I posed to you.
Apparently you couldn't even be bothered to see what evidence you could sift in support of your position.





I don't see any significance to your statistics, since I'm talking about the me-too-ism of the "supporting" nations as opposed to a real effort to support us. You're statistics are only supporting my side of the argument: you call that support ? I suppose the British could have gotten away with a few tug-boats for D-day then, right ? Russian coulda just thrown a few pine-cones at the Japs (not too far from the truth, eh ?) ? C'mon. Cap'n ! I'll grant the world was really disinterested in the invasion, for or against. I'm not claiming that there was pervasive international opposition, but there was opposition from major countries, just as there was support. Let's paint the whole picture !






There's a valid comparison in terms of consensus-building, however.
If you can ignore that, then there's probably plenty of other relevant stuff you can ignore.




Sure, sure... Bush wanted ta have other people on the band-wagon, so it wouldn't look so unilateral. He'd already made up his mind to take down Hussein months ago, and needed some justification (with a little dose of international "support" mixed in). He said to the world that he'd send in the Army to do the job alone if necessary, so any later "support" is moot, in terms of consensus building, or anything else. It's world-wide "me-too-ism".

[Ryokan]

Are you saying that the world is screwed if everybody doesn't do that which is in the U.S.' s best interests ? :huh:
As an American, if the world threatens the US with significant damage, yes, its screwed. Tough luck Charlie. See ya later alligator. IF it doesn't constitute serious damage, we can play nicer, but nuclear weapons aren't a small issue.

[Ben Franklin]

As an American, if the world threatens the US with significant damage, yes, its screwed. Tough luck Charlie. See ya later alligator. IF it doesn't constitute serious damage, we can play nicer, but nuclear weapons aren't a small issue.




OK, so the issue here is: what is the U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and who is with it ?

:thumb:

[Ryokan]

OK, so the issue here is: what is the U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and who is with it ?

:thumb:
The way it seems to play out, if you've had them for a while, you can keep them, but nobody new should get them.

[Ben Franklin]

The way it seems to play out, if you've had them for a while, you can keep them, but nobody new should get them.

Hmmm... of course, every country wants them (or should want them), so it's only a matter of time until someone the U.S. doesn't like gets them, anyway. (I can think of an anti-U.S. country that already has nuclear capability, but I'm not gonna name names.) America must develop effective missile defense systems before it's too late.

:tongue:

[Durthorin]

Odds are those the US dislikes that own them will start selling them to other people we don't like since what Iraq vs North Korea proved is that if your a lunatic Dictator WITH a nuke we won't attack you.

[Ben Franklin]

Odds are those the US dislikes that own them will start selling them to other people we don't like since what Iraq vs North Korea proved is that if your a lunatic Dictator WITH a nuke we won't attack you.



So, barring nukes, the "Bush Doctrine" is to stamp out dictatorships all across the world ? Is that right ?

[Durthorin]

So, barring nukes, the "Bush Doctrine" is to stamp out dictatorships all across the world ? Is that right ?
No if memory serves its to reserve the right to attack any nation we believe -might- be a threat to us in the future. Its just if they have nukes...we don't. Cause.. well, they have nukes.. and they might actually be able to hurt us. The current concept might better be described as "War by Whimsey". Its basic foundation seems to be as you've seen.. "I think you are a threat" Their goverment is pretty much not spelled out.

Canada better watch out..

Danu Bless, Dur

[Ben Franklin]

No if memory serves its to reserve the right to attack any nation we believe -might- be a threat to us in the future. Its just if they have nukes...we don't. Cause.. well, they have nukes.. and they might actually be able to hurt us. The current concept might better be described as "War by Whimsey". Its basic foundation seems to be as you've seen.. "I think you are a threat" Their goverment is pretty much not spelled out.

Canada better watch out..

Danu Bless, Dur

Hoo-boy... if that's how it is, then America is in deep doo-doo... "Diplomacy" must be a four-letter word there ! :rofl: