No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 2 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations. The fact is that many countries supported both the the 1991 and the 2003 invasion, and in both cases the majority of the countries provided only token support. So if the 1991 gulf war had multi-national support, so did the 2003 war.

You're kidding yourself.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations.

What? I'm sorry, I thought you said the majority of the countries in the 2003 coalition weren't third-world. I suppose you can weasel and say that just because someone's not powerful doesn't make them third-world, but by your statement you're implying that we had a coalition behind us that was made up of countries of more than minimal importance.
Some of our more prominent members in 2003:

Singapore Philippines
Afghanistan Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia Solomon Islands
Mongolia Palau
Tonga Eritrea
Ethiopia Uganda
Rwanda Angola
Estonia Latvia
Lithuania, etc.

[Edited to add: Those were supposed to be in columns, with spaces in between. Oh well.]

Only 3 members of the G8, one of whom has withdrawn (Italy, and Canada had less than 10 troops in Iraq and who are no longer there anyway, therefore I'm discounting them, before someone says, but what about Canada). On a larger list, the only regional power providing support is Kuwait, probably from a sense of obligation.

On the other hand, the 1991 invasion had support from most of the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, US, UK, Italy) as well as mass regional support -Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey.

I'm curious how you'll discount this evidence that the two coalitions are in any way equal, or that the 2003 coalition is in any way superior to the 1991 coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Forces
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:36 PM

Thanks Seven, but it's really not worth it. He'll just end up implying you're a nazi.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:41 PM

Well, you said I was a terrorist in the other thread - which is it? Terrorist or Nazi?!?!

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Well, you said I was a terrorist in the other thread - which is it? Terrorist or Nazi?!?!

You mean you can't be both? Commie-Nazi-Terrorist-Jew?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CARTOON

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't.

It's human nature to envy the one at the top.

Whether it's the most stuff, the most power, the best looks -- everyone wishes they had it, too.

For the better part of the last six decades, the U.S. has been the top dog.

As a side note, the U.S. didn't become top dog by choice, but rather by blessing of default -- as all of the other dogs at (or near) the top of the pile beat the crap out of each other (in their own yards, nonetheless), essentially decimating themselves, and leaving the U.S. as the only one still standing with the majority of their resources, infrastructure and economy intact.

However, history clearly demonstrates that power and wealth is temporal -- no one stays at the top forever. As such, I've no doubt that the day will eventually come when another dog will be sitting pretty at the top of the pile, and the U.S. relegated to a less enviable position.

Whether such a change occurs in this generation, or not until well beyond the lifetimes of everyone in this forum, I am fairly certain that it will happen. When it does, I believe the rest of the world will espouse two, very different sentiments...

Initially, I'm guessing that much of the globe will express unmitigated glee at the downfall of the U.S. They'll be giddy in celebration. "Hah,hah! The American taskmaster has fallen!!" (insert ecstatic, drunken revelry here)

After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.

They will also likely realize (in relative short order) that the nation which could consistently be depended upon to bail their posteriors out of the fire was conspicuously missing. "Oh dear! There's no one standing between that nasty neighbor and me anymore!! And I don't like the way they're eyeing-up my resources/wealth/citizenry/take your pick..."

For all of the U.S.'s faults (and yes, we've had plenty) the U.S. could've played the card the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, and occupied all of Western Europe with satellite, puppet regimes. They could've pulled out of Europe altogether, and let Stalin march to the Atlantic (and then some). They could've ignored a lot of their neighbor's "little problems", for which they consistently and willingly shed the blood of their youth for causes which (in no way) had any bearing on the way we lived our lives back here in the good old U.S.A.

In summary, I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

Sometimes one never realizes how good one has it until it's gone.

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
It's human nature to envy the one at the top.

Or to put it another way:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
I believe the general loss of trust and respect the international community is beginning to feel for the US is entirely their fault and problem.

I gather they're just jealous.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26749

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations.

What? I'm sorry, I thought you said the majority of the countries in the 2003 coalition weren't third-world.

Yeah, that’s what I said. Even if I were to take your list of supposedly Third World nations in the coalition, that’s still not a majority. But some of the countries in your list aren’t Third World. Mongolia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Singapore are not Third World.

There’s no doubt that the coalition that we had in 1991 was much more powerful, but then we also believed that Iraq was much more powerful as well, and the strategy we were using was different. And it was discovered rather quickly that the military force that was brought to bear on Iraq in 1991 was orders of magnitude overkill. In 2003, we intentionally kept the force small, because our strategy called for a small footprint. But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah, that’s what I said. Even if I were to take your list of supposedly Third World nations in the coalition, that’s still not a majority

Not a majority of what, the coalition? Yes it is. I provided you a list half of the 'coalition'. You're seriously going to claim that those countries provide any real power in the coalition, or any real support? Now you're stretching.

Quote:
But some of the countries in your list aren’t Third World. Mongolia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Singapore are not Third World.

Ah, okay. You're going to do exactly what I figured, and play the "textbook definition of Third World" card. Fine. Those countries may not be considered 'developing nations without a large population base,' and they're technically 'Second World' (there, does that make you happy?). But you can't refute the larger issue - that those are not countries of any serious standing in the world, and you know it.

Quote:
There’s no doubt that the coalition that we had in 1991 was much more powerful,

Then that's what you should have said earlier. You implied that the 2003 coalition is just as powerful and is of the same quality as the 1991 coalition, and that the 2003 coalition is filled with members of substance. It isn't.

Quote:
But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.

You also want to parse down to "our mission is different so we had a different force" as well as "it has nations, so it is multi-national." We have a different force because we couldn't get anyone to sign on to our hairbrained idea of nation-building. As far as the multinational goes, I'll say this: You can make fun of France and Germany all you want, but they're a sure sight better to have on your side as support than Rwanda or Estonia.

Oh, and one other thing - I'm curious what your take is on the fact that we had zero regional support this time, as opposed to last time.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 28, 2007 1:20 AM

Quote:
No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now.

What part of 10 GORRAM YEARS did you NOT get ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE