State of the Union

Germany, France (yes, I know... France), the vast majority of the people in many of the supporting nations, Russia (like they care).

Mind you, Germany sent troops to Afghanistan so you can't play the "but it's Germany and they're all pacifists" card.

Just compare the pre-Afghanistan consensus to the pre-Iraq division.

The Arabs wouldn't touch it, but that's almost certainly not his fault.

Rumsfeld was the biggest problem. His incendiary remarks, diplomacy by fire, did nothing to improve the situation.

 

All but Britain.

 

Standard partisan drivel. I don't dislike Bush because he's got an "R" next to his name, it's because his policies are bad for this country. As for anti-military, I don't know a single person who is left of center to any degree who is against the troops, or doesn't know someone who is over in Iraq or Afganastan fighting at this moment. Those of us who criticise B2, criticize his use of the troops, not the troops themselves. God knows I don't want to see another one of our children, fathers, mothers, husbands or wives come home in a bady bag or missing a limb.

And holy crap, how can anyone complain about Bush bashers being pro-government at this point! Every Bushophile has found a way to accept every last thing he has done in the past few years. Torture people, no problem. Create secret miltitary bases to interogate people, righto. Extraordinary redition, and declaring US citizens enemy combatants, right on. Spying on US citizens without event to most minimal, MINIMAL, checks and balances outside of the executive branch, which is a huge part of out Constitution, great go ahead. More big government and pork spending then in any other administration, thats fine as long as its the repubs that are doing it. The apologists for this adminsistration are extreme in there lack of criticism of this administration, and his policies are very, very, non-conservative.

Also, anyone who criticizes the left for knocking Bush, has an awfully short memory. The right excoriated Clinton from day one, they never gave him a chance. Rush, Coulter et al were calling the POTUS a scumbag, and this was way before Monica Lewinsky. So I gues it's alright for the right to be zealous against a liberal, just not the other way around.

Peace,
Cosmo

 

I don't know if Bush is much of a leader either. Clinton and Bush were President in different times, so it is difficult to compare them...

But as to your first point... Bush said something the other day during a public appearance at a university that pissed me off.

During the Q&A session, a girl asked bush a very well timed question about how the $12.7 billion cut in federal student loan aid would help education... bush's response? He clearly was caught off guard, denied that the federal government was cutting loan money, and was only "reorganizing" to make education better. He was clearly confused, and clearly he had no idea that his administration was pushing the bill through Congress that would have represented the biggest single cut in federal student loan in history.

Being right out of college... and coming from a lower-class background, those student loans were CRITICAL in letting me pursue my ambitions to be an engineer without breaking my parents' backs.... even with the loans, they came very close to...

And now the administration and congress want to make it harder for kids to go to college... and Bush, speaking at a university no less, had no idea.

This is completely and utterly inexcusable. I understand about fiscal responsibility, but cutting federal student aid is snubbing a responsibility we have to give every aspiring high schooler a chance at a good education... this is an insult to the American Dream.

 

See, it's this sort of thing that chaps my nice person... :lol:

Because YOU don't support it, the guidelines are suddenly shifted to something that gives a slight bit of credence to your argument.

ONLY TWO of the Nato Allies were not convinced. I guess all the other leaders just didn't care, are in bed with Bush for oil deals, or are simply too stupid to object. Don't try to marginalize it. This supposed "vast majority" didn't have access to information their leaders did.

Right.

:angry:

 

Sorry about your nice person.

Only Britain supports us.
A few others, under strong US pressure, have provided nominal physical support (purely face saving), not because they were convinced but because they were intimidated.

 

Ok, I'm beginning to think I made a mistake in saying you seemed to be a more logic/proof oriented Bush-basher.

You've just warped the facts, just like Tripp to support your viewpoints.

Had either of you answered with something BALANCED like, "France and Germany were the non-supporters, but I believe the countries that did support the US were (insert reason here)" that would have been great, instead, you project BIAS right off the bat.

Boooo.

...and THIS is why it's extremely difficult to have a balanced argument on the issue.

:angry:

 

Really there's no point in bickering about who supported who at what point in history.

We have to deal with the here and now.

That's not to say that there's no reason to point fingers... I still point to Bush and the administration for a lot of things... there are plenty of issues that are more important to expend energy on today other than this historical crap.

 

Jan 2003: European Views on Iraq Invasion

 

How can you say only Britain supprted the US-led invasion? How many countries sent some representation or let their airspace and/or bases be used? Only Britain?

 

i don't ever want US foreign policy dictated by european opinion polls. Is that what you are infering?

 

The reason is responsibility. Rewriting history is not convincing.

 

Honestly sorry you feel that way.

If I recall correctly, the war in Iraq was/is fought almost exclusely by the US and Britain.
Other countries in the "coalition of the willing" (and boy wouldn't W have loved to be able call it something less wimpy) had/have only nominal participation and were/are kept away from the hotter spots.
Some provide materials and transportation access only.

You are correct, however, in your assertion that I have not provided adequate citations.
I am going on my recollections of the news and opinions I formed over the course of events.
I generally avoid participating in these types of discussions because I'm not really motivated enough to do the due dilligence of researching collaborative press.
I should probably withdraw.

 

There seems to be some confusion about how isolated the US was in it's invasion of Iraq. Have your opinion about the war, but at least accept basic facts.

 

There is a difference from having the opinion polls influence foreign policy and it being instructive to us...

Hell... i don't think opinion polls in the US of A much impact foreign policy at all, so the chances of a european poll having any clout is nil...

But like opinion polls here, it's instructive from a political point of view.

 

"History is written by the victors." - Winston Churchill

While looking this up, I came across these other applicable WC gems:

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write itâ€

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.â€

“If you are going through hell, keep going.â€

“Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.â€

 

Exactly how isolated was/is the US?

 

Our relationship with the UN has soured quite a bit... but i get the feeling you don't give a crap about the UN.

 

Look at the poll, but realize things have since deteriorated. And of course that is only Europe, which overall is more supportive of the US than the remainder of the world.

 

So are they any less of a coalition if they provide some materials and/or transporation access? This is precisely the argument I got into with maggieddd...

I'm not asking for any 'citations'/materials/etc., simply present the facts without bias. It's a FACT, only two NATO countries did not support the US. If you want to argue the reasons beyond and make a summation "that because of these reasons you believe even though only 2 countries did not support the US, the support was effectively far less...." that's GREAT, but don't pass off your perspective as FACT.

...and THIS is precisely why I lead you down that path of questioning. I knew damn well France and Germany were the only two. I HOPED to get an honest unbiased answer from SOMEONE.

:angry:

edit: and the same goes for Tripp. :angry: