| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Tom Friedman's Free Advice to the G.O.P | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 23 2003, 05:51 PM (896 Views) | |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 12:41 PM Post #46 |
|
Ensign
|
Ok Countries that were not in the coalition: Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Burkina Faso Burma (Myanmar) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Comoros Congo Congo, Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Djibouti Dominica East Timor Ecuador Egypt England (U.K.) Equatorial Guinea Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Germany Ghana Great Britain (U.K.) Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, North Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal New Zealand Niger Nigeria Northern Ireland (U.K.) Norway Oman Pakistan Palestinian State* Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Qatar Russia St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino São Tomé and Príncipe Saudi Arabia Scotland (U.K.) Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Slovenia Somalia South Africa Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkmenistan Tuvalu Ukraine United Arab Emirates Uruguay Vanuatu Vatican City (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Wales (U.K.) Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe 180(something) countries - 46 = 134(+) countries not willing to even give the invasion lip service. 6.3 billion (estimated world pop) - 1.7 (from Bill's numbers) = 4.6 billion that either disagreed strongly with the war or enough to remain off the coallition. And many of these countries (including the US, UK) had strong opposition from within their populations. In the First Gulf War, in which the case was obvious, there was practically full support. In this invasion Bush couldn't drum up even 1/4 of the world's support with strong arm tactics and his wonderful fearmongering case for war. The number of countries NOT in the coalition is a great deal more telling. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 01:11 PM Post #47 |
|
Ensign
|
Witchita, Sorry if my previous post was confusing. I stopped in after grading papers to respond so I was a little loopy. I by no means meant to call you stupid. If I thought you were stupid I wouldn't respond to anything you post. My point was essentially that no one here has either the information or resouces to suggest any real fixes to the situation but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability/information at hand to judge the present situation and planning as craptacular. We could say only the most obscure things like get the troops out (which wouldn't help the situation IMO) or get more international involvement. I felt you were marginalizing Benetil's opinions on the grounds that if he doesn't have a solution he must then get no right to state an opinion. Everyone is capable of recognizing a problem but only those with the necessary skills and information can really do anything to fix it. I don't mean to suggest that the public simply be sheep and not construct their own opinions about the best way to approach the Iraq situation. They by all means should. But in the end its up to Washington to find the fixes and for us to support the people who suggest the fixes we most agree with. Bill, intro of Bremer - 1 Condi takin over (should have happened way earlier or something like it) - 2 Mass Reassignment of forces and redistrabution of aid and military positions in ealry September (when they realized the resistance was increasing in range and number) - 3 The tactics of the opposition have only improved since the guriella campaings began. Not to mention that their attacks have increased in number. Neither of these point to progress. The attacks on coallition forces and aid workers would go on despite whether there is or is not progress. I could buy Bush's RNC approved arguement if the attacks became more disorganized, decreased in number or became increasingly desperate. But the US military command says otherwise. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 27 2003, 01:57 PM Post #48 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
You didn't call me stupid - the original author Benetil quoted did (or brain dead or ignorant or something similiar). Certainly nothing that is going to sway my opinion in his direction. The point that I was attempting to make to Benetil was that, if I would absolutely disagreed with an action of my government on an issue, I would be looking for a candidate with a plan that I DID agree with. My choosing that candidate, in essence, would be my "alternative". The candidate's plan could also be my "alternative'. After posting last night, I listened to as much of the Democratic candidates debate as I could stand. (The constant applause irritates the crap out of me. I read the transcript of the State of the Union instead of listening to it for the same reason.) What I was listening for was some type of alternative and frankly, I didn't hear one. I divide the group into three groups: those who always opposed the war and still do, those who supported the war and (to whatever degree) still do, and those who claimed to have supported it only because they had been misled. I don't give the third group much credit because they DO have access to information that you and I don't have as well and any number of individual sources. I am not impressed with anyone who gives the excuse that they were confused. If they were confused then, how do I know they aren't confused now? (rhetorical question) As to the "no" votes, I didn't hear Sharpton speak to the question and Braun gave a response that seemed to me to be saying that she would essentially do what we are doing now, but we could trust her because she said so. Kucinich proudly admitted to having opposed the war without having heard the intelligence briefings. According to him, he didn't need to do so because he knew, without hearing them, that they were lies. His solution is to turn it all over to the UN and get out. (I have to throw in a personal comment here. Kucinich is from the same state as I and I have watched his career for several decades. Cleveland went bankrupt when he was mayor due in large part to his inability to manage the budget and prickly personality made it difficult for people to work with him. He was elected to Congress because it was a legal way to keep him out of the state most of the time.) Dean, of course, was proud of his opposition to the war from the start. I did not hear him address what he would do NOW about the situation. He also took a "cheap shot" at Kucinich and flat out lied about Jimmy Carter. Whether it was a deliberate lie or one born of ignorance, it wasn't a good sign. Gephardt and Lieberman both approached the questions differently and in a way that seemed to indicate that they had put some thought into just how hard the situation really is to resolve. Given there is a very good chance that the situation may not change even with a different president in office, their responses seemed to indicate a maturity lacking in the others. But no one stated a better alternative ... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 02:48 PM Post #49 |
|
Ensign
|
:lol: Thats great!
Me too. Its irritating in the State of the Union but its just outright unnecesary in debates. Especially debates amongst the same party. - I do agree with you that alternatives are in short supply but we're in that stage of the campaigns were everything is left ambigious. However, I beleive that more UN involvement in governing is a real alternative to the Bush agenda and the one that I most certainly agree with. I also think that any democrat and to a lesser degree any Republican would be a better alternative for the Iraq situation. Rightly or wrongly the world's opinion of Bush is very low and I feel that there would be a hella lot more support for the rebuidling effort if there was another man/woman in office. Then the other world leaders could get on board without the problem of "legitamizing" the invasion by pinning the problems squarley on the ousted Bush. The best thing for the Iraqi people would probably be for us to vote in anyone but Bush. Though the election of Lieberman (being Jewish) would probably make the situation hella worse. His canidacy would most likely be seen as legitamizing the extreme Arab veiw that the US is a shill of Israel. So, IMO, there is at least 1 worse canidate for the Iraq issue then Bush. And its importnat to note that none of the democrats have called for pulling out despite the rhetoric of the right-wing press. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 27 2003, 03:03 PM Post #50 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
"But why?" to the first sentence ... Yes, it may change the world view, but what specifically will it do for the situation in Iraq? The soldier that died last night would be just as dead if the President's name was Gephardt. What would keep the soldier from dying last night? And "I disagree" to the second ... I would say that Kucinich is calling for precisely that based on what I heard last night and Dean possibly was as well. I said he didn't speak to what he would do IN Iraq - I didn't say he didn't speak about getting out of Iraq. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 03:32 PM Post #51 |
|
Ensign
|
Well my why to the first sentence was my point that the world communitty has a very low opinion of Bush and what we really need, IMO, is more international support.
- Well first of all I don't think anything will stop the attacks on soldiers and aid workers. But more international invovlement would mean more specialized aid, more aid, and the governing of leaders and forces that have experience occupying unfreindly countries and battleing terrorists. Most of all it would help shape the occupation into an internatioal venture rather then a Bush agenda which would be a great stride to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. There is also great potenital that more international involvement would mean more companies would be avaliable/willing to bid on contracts making the whole thing cheaper. Not to mention that many would have the access to bidding they've been denied in the first place. In many polls I've seen, and this point has often been ignored by all members of the media, is that the Iraqi people heavily favor a larger UN role in governing. As to the point of "getting out": I missed Kucinich's comments, but unless he makes a deal with Satan I seriously doubt he'll be getting the nomination. I have heard many statements about the Bush admin having no exit strategy, which many have construed to make the 'demos want to run' point. But calling for an exit strategy or seeking more international involvement are far strides from giving orders to pack up and go home. Until we hear one of them say something to the affect of "I will pull out the troops regardless of the situation" I don't think its fair to assert that their opinion is that. Your comments lead to think that you beleive seeking more UN involvement and international help would not effect the situation IN Iraq. I whole-heartedly disagree. I very much beleive that this would greatly affect the direction of the Iraq crisis for the reasons I posted above. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 27 2003, 03:37 PM Post #52 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Theres "getting more international aid" and there's "dumping it on the UN" ... Those two things are NOT equivalent. I am off to grade papers now.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 03:52 PM Post #53 |
|
Ensign
|
True that. But even if it were to be the UN's baby I seriously doubt the US would not be responsible for the biggest part of the slack. Good luck with those papers and nice talking with you as always. :wkpump: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 27 2003, 04:41 PM Post #54 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I didn't say diddly about countries that didn't support us, Qubed. I DID ask if 46 countries was enough of a coalition for your buddy, Benetil. Somehow I doubt that every country you listed was in disagreement with us. They didn't commit. This would invalidate your figures (by the way, the world's population just (supposedly) turned 6 billion. I doubt it is 6.3 billion in 3 years) and your thesis. As I remember, the coalition for the first Gulf War was 28 nations. I guess that wasn't enough either? What is it with you lefties... it is always all or nothing with you. How much internationall support IS enough? Any comment about the 15-0 authorization in the UN that allows a multinational force under unified command that will be led by the United States? Any comment on the $15 billion pledged to the reconstruction of Iraq (plus our 20 billion makes 35 billion)? By the way, any of your candidates EXCEPT Bush would be a complete disaster, both for this country AND Iraq. Did you watch that whinefest called a debate last night. Did any of them offer any plans? Nope. They spent two hours calling George Bush naes and saying he was wrong and offered NO solutions aside from raising taxes (wait... Dennis Kucinich wants to raise taxes AND create a Department of Peace). Please let Howard Dean win!! Please, Please, Please!! It'll be 1980 all over again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 27 2003, 05:13 PM Post #55 |
|
Ensign
|
Actually it was the 28 countries supplying forces which were called "the coalition" in Iraq 1. With the support of of the world behind it. The UN vote scored over 170 in favor of Iraq 1. The number of countries supplying troops on the onset of Iraq 2? 3. And did they get UN approval? Nope. Again, I'm not saying we had no support. I do, however, beleive that the support we did NOT get is telling.
-http://www.astralstar.com/earth_people.html
- This vote was not for or against war. It was simply to clarify the leadership roles if war was to be necessary. It was bureacracy. If you recall, the UN vote for war was so clearly not going to pass it didn't even get called to a vote.
I disagree and have 2 points. 1. The coalition was made up of several 3rd world countries who contributed diddly to squat to the effort and several of the countries had no standing military in the first place. 2. Whether they had strong opposition or were not willing to get into the middle of it every country was lobbied to join the list, which is largely symbolic, and had to choose whether or not to support the war. I'm not making the point that we had NO support. But the support we had as compared to the supprt we did NOT have in name or real forces I think is important to note. More support would certainly have made the present situation better.
- Sure. So the world communitty doesn't want to leave the Iraqis high and dry. This doens't legitamize the war nor does it indicate that the world community is in love with Bush's handeling of the post war situation. And like all promises for cash we'll have to see what actually becomes of it. Just look at the dispareging difference between the aid promised Afganistan and what it has actually received.
Ok I realize there are a lot of posters to keep straight but for at least the 3rd time I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I really despise the part system and think it hijacks true democracy. I've protested against Clinton and have never given money or time to either party. I do realize that my politics are a great deal closer to democrats that Republicans. I also disgree strongly with your assertion. In my estimation Bush has been a terribly craptacular President and think just about anybody from either party would do a better job. IMO. - nice chattin with ya |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 27 2003, 05:36 PM Post #56 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Craptacular... cute. I would've loved to see a President Gore or a President Nader (or even a President L. Neil Smith) deal with 9/11. The first two would still be trying to recognize the roots of why those poor underprivileged terrorists would want to kill us, and the latter would write a book about it and somehow blame it on Bill Bennett and Bill Buckley. Yes, it does boil down to 9/11. Either you are a September 10th American or you are a September 11th American. Who gives a rat's a$$ about the UN. I was making a point, but didn't care less if they liked it or not. The UN is a dinosaur and we'd be doing the world a favor if we dropped a neutron weapon on THEM. You realize that link on population is an ESTIMATE, right?? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| polarslam | Oct 27 2003, 08:22 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
The coalition of the willing is really a joke...besides Britian and Austrlia the rest just paid lip service. That said it's important for the U.S to stick it out in Iraq and not run away from the no doubt growing ammount of causlites that they are going to suffer in the coming years. Pulling out of Iraq now would be worse than leaving Saddam in power, as the government would be taken over by relgious fundies from Iran and pose a whole new security threat to the region. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 27 2003, 09:37 PM Post #58 |
|
Unregistered
|
Hi, Admiralbill_gomec. I do think that some (most) of the nations on your list offer little more than moral support - but I'll take it and I'll be grateful for it. More meaningful than just a symbolic support is the contribution that a couple of handfuls of nations have made by sending or offering to send "Iraq stabilizaton" troops into Iraq. And I'm genuinely grateful for the major role that our ally Britain has played in Iraq. I'm also encouraged by the level of financial aid that Japan recently pledged (conference in Spain). I was also pleased that other nations/banks pulled together to "FIND" around $33,000,000,000 (gifts, pledges and loans). I'll be even more pleased when funds materialize (more funds than just the $20,000,000,000 that US taxpayers are sending). I mentioned the recent unanimous UN Security Council vote in a previous post. With the exception of this vote, France, Germany and Russia have been absent from the scene. But I'm not disappointed. I didn't expect anything from them. I'm very concerned about incidents like the recent rocket attacks and coordinated car bombings we have seen in and around Baghdad. We have to find a way to stop these kinds of terrorist attacks because I'm afraid that the more of this we see, the less willing our "allies" will be to get/remain involved. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is already talking about withdrawing as a result of the devastating attack that took place at/near their facility. I think that attacks of this nature will even deter good Iraqi people from participating. What is wrong with the people who would intentionally drive a car loaded with explosives into an area where innocent people are? I've been looking more and more into some of the views/comments of Robert Baer. He unleashes a damning indictment of our intelligence services where Iraq, indeed the Middle East, is concerned. In many respects, he (Baer) also "alleges" that our action in Iraq is (whether by design or by accident) distracting attention from the #1 source of terrorism on our planet: Saudi Arabia. I think he's right about Saudi Arabia. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| benetil | Nov 11 2003, 08:18 PM Post #59 |
|
Unregistered
|
I see our government warming up to two points in Tom Friedman's article that was published on October 23. I'm sure that the administration would rather attribute any changes in policy to Secretary Rumsfeld's snowflakes, but the timing of the changes is just too close to Tom Friedman's article to be coincidence (in my opinion). * President Bush is beginning to talk about the insurgency and the guerilla war tactics in Iraq as being much more than just a mopping up exercise for our troops - and commanders are beginning to take more aggressive offensive operations to put down the terrorists * chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Myers is beginning to talk about restoring elements of the former Iraqi Army - security of Iraq provided by real Iraqis And we're hearing about a stepped-up timetable for placing authority for Iraq in the hands of Iraqis (a "real" governing council - ?). Now if Gen. Abizaid and Ambassador Bremer could stop their petty quarreling and put the interests of the troops and the Iraqi people ahead of their egotistical control games, we'll be home free 10 short years and $500,000,000,000 later. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 12 2003, 01:36 AM Post #60 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
This doesn't have squat to do with anything from Tom Friedman. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:14 PM Jul 11