No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 3 of 15
Quote:
But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.
And there's no doubt that opposition to the 2003 war had multi-national support. That's also a fact.
But don't let me get in the way, it's been a while since I've last seen a bout of 7% vs Finn, and their discussons are usually great fun!
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You would think that having almost every major player in the world being against us going into Iraq would have been a reason for Bush to rethink his plans in the first place. But no.
Knowing that Bush will still be President for another two years is what going crazy feels like.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Auraptor, perhaps the amnesia problem is yours. You seem to be forgetting that UN inspectors were within weeks of declaring Iraq in substantial compliance. That the UN never voted for invasion. That many nations around the world opposed it right from the start.
And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You also seem to be forgetting the Admin's big hoo-ha about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, chemical weapons deployed "east west south north somewhat" of Baghdad, the links between Saddam and 9-11 and all the other... bullshit... that successfully stampeded most people to support the war. And what you REALLY forgot is al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. You've totally taken your eye off the ball.
How does it feel to have your hard drive erased remotely? A little like going insane?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You and I both know that the whole episode from GWB setting things in motion to the invasion took no time at all. Don't give me this 10 Years bullshit.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What part of 10 GORRAM YEARS did you NOT get ?
That's just selective reading of history.
EDIT (FOR BDN's benefit): Although I didn't change anything I had previously posted in any way shape or form I added the last sentence for clarification.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't.
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.
I think part of the experience of being an Imperial Power is looking back at what you have done and making an honest assessment of the mistakes you have made.
While the British Empire spread ideals of liberty and democracy that were anathema to other European powers it also committed acts that were probably evil in action while preaching that it was morally superior. The two most obvious examples are the great famines in Ireland and India where a fanatical belief in the free market, local rivalries and wilful ignorance from the centre just added to the tragedy.
It takes time for the mainstream to realise this and in the inward looking US media I'd guess it will take a long time. The post war agreement with the US and the UK was designed to ensure the end of the British Empire and cement the rise of American power. I believe the notional handover of power between China and the US will be similarly designed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Auraptor, perhaps the amnesia problem is yours. You seem to be forgetting that UN inspectors were within weeks of declaring Iraq in substantial compliance. That the UN never voted for invasion. That many nations around the world opposed it right from the start.
And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You also seem to be forgetting the Admin's big hoo-ha about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, chemical weapons deployed "east west south north somewhat" of Baghdad, the links between Saddam and 9-11 and all the other... bullshit... that successfully stampeded most people to support the war. And what you REALLY forgot is al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. You've totally taken your eye off the ball.
How does it feel to have your hard drive erased remotely? A little like going insane?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
It's mere speculation that the UN was going to do anything other than they had been doing. That's pointing out that Iraq had not complied w/ U.N.resolutions, nor was it about to.
Actually, the UN DID vote for the use of force, as mentioned in the previous resolutions. There was no need for any additional voting on this issue.
The administration made no direct links between Saddam and al Qaeda for 9/11, but it was right to suspect there MIGHT be some cooperation in the future. Anyone who was for the war on that false premise wasn't paying attention.
al Qaeda is still the focus in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. No one took their eyes off anything.
Hard drive erased ? WTF are you babbling about ?
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There were 49 total countries in the coalition. You listed 20 countries that you defined as “Third World.” The last I checked, 20 is not a majority of 49.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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:Yes, it makes me happy. And I’m not going to refute, nor have I argued against, the fact that most countries in the 2003 Coalition (or the 1991 for that matter) are not world powers. Honduras, Bahrain, Senegal, Czechoslovakia, Niger, Oman, UAE, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh and Morocco are Second World powers involved in the 1991 Coalition. But a nation doesn’t have to be a Second or Third World country to have little world military significance (and several Second World nations are not militarily insignificant), and that’s largely the reason why in both Coalitions the vast majority of the force strength came from only the few countries in the Coalition that actually do.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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:I implied no such thing. I responded to the statement that there was no multi-national support in the 2003 coalition, not to any equality in the military power represented by the two coalitions.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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:In a fight, I’d rather have France and Germany, then Rwanda or Estonia, but if France and Germany have other plans, then I might have to do with Rwanda and Estonia. It is harder to get nations to sign onto a war in which they might have to actually fight, then one in which they know they will not. But there were lots of reason why the 1991 coalition was larger. Most nations knew that the 2003 war was for real, not just a big demonstration of US air power as had been the case in 1991, so there was a greater reluctance to getting involved. Had we decided to hang around and topple the regime in 1991 as the military leaders wanted to, that giant coalition might have crumbled. But that wasn’t the only reason. Some countries, like France, Russia, Jordan and some people in the UN bureaucracy had very lucrative oil, weapons and illicit contracts with the Hussein regime which they wanted to protect. Other countries like Egypt feared that a US/UK backed Iraq would become the principle beneficiary of all that political and financial aid that Egypt enjoyed as one of the US’s major Arab allies. It was also true that the 1991 coalition was just a huge waste of resources, but we didn’t know how powerful Iraq really was, and we vastly underestimated the effectiveness of Western airpower and the US simply had a much larger army in those days. It wasn’t as big of a deal for the US to commit over half a million servicemen to the 1991 war. And even more important,
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is the coalition of the willing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
If my calculations are correct there were roughly 21,000 troops deployed NOT including UK and the USA at the beginning of operations. And it is 48 countries actually, Cost Rica withdrew. And at least ten of those countries had fewer than 100 personnel in the theater. And I say "personnel" because most of the troops sent by the countries were medics, engineers and such not combat troops.
Not much help if you ask me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.
David
Oh, sure. And then be blamed for leaving Iraq in a revisiting of The Killing Fields, like we saw in Cambodia, circa 1970's. Do you REALLY want that to happen again for humanity?
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lemme be blindingly, blazingly blunt here.
I. Do. Not. Care.
They ain't us, and it's us we need to worry about with our shattered economy and crumbling infrastructure - these things matter to me, the fate of poor sodders who don't live here ain't my damn problem.
To hell with gallivanting about the world trying to solve everyone elses problems while ours fester, and be damned to doing off our ruinous tax burden which the military sucks down like a 454 chevelle towing a mobilehome.
To be blisteringly crude, we got more important concerns HERE.
Might be a bit offensive to say it, but it's true nonetheless.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME