A Few Questions About The Iraq War

[RGBVideo]

You're missing the point.

Probably. When you're using BS-arguments to support your view, it's kinda rare for others to immediately start agreeing with the view, when you can just easily blow up the arguments with facts first.

The case to go to war could've been made easily, but the way Bush presented himself BEFORE any major diplomatic efforts had been put forth turned a significant % of opinion against the war. What should have been an easy marshalling of U.N./public support instead turned into the mess we have today.

I disagree. IMO, with the BSWMD -mumbo jumbo going on, there were no way how Bush could've reached UN support. As for public support, Bush administration hasn't lost it domestically, and it has no direct use for temporary public support in foreign nations.

EDIT: added "for others"

[GePap]

On popular opinion- in the vast majority of countries that supported the war was there a majority of the population that opposed the war, speically in Italy and Spain. IN Australia a majority opposed the war before it started: only after it started did support shift since troops were on the ground. I don;t know about Denmark_ if it is true the majoirty supported the war before action was taken, then that would make Denmark the only state outside of Kuwait and the US in which the war was popular before the start.

As whether the war started too soon- wrong question-the question is whether the war started after the admin. had laid down a good base form which to move- the answer is no.

Did I say all I had to say? I did one thread in which I laid out my whole case- I don;t think anyone looked at it- there is difference between saying it, and it being listened to. I prefer the later.

Knowing the war to be inevitable, sooner- then we would be further along in this morass and the Unophobes would have goten less of a show.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by yaroslav
One thing is the govt and other thing is the population. There can be issues where the population's feelings are different from goverement's feeling. In all the UE the majority of population was against the war - In Spain only 10% (or even less, I don't recall the exact figure) was pro-war.

Nicely put.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ihave to say something about the Balkans. Bulgaria, FYROM, Albania this is all public relations. Their populations were hugely indifferent and to a large degree hostile. Turkey's too. What their governments though (the Balkans not Turkey, it's more complicated in that case) was that by just putting themselves in that list they could expect some favors from the US.

That's hardly "legitimazing" anything.
And I guarantee that 10 years from now everything around Greece will be red and happy.

[RGBVideo]

I don;t think anyone looked at it- there is difference between saying it, and it being listened to. I prefer the later.

I did, and I think that you were simply superb when it came to debating about that conflict.

[Bereta_Eder]

I was also talking with some Romanians. The people live in dire poverty and immigrate like Greeks did some decades ago. When asked about what they thought about their government puting their country on the list their first responce was: what? (they didn't even know it) And the second: "we are poor" and were apologetic and certaintly didn't have any fond feelings about the US action. FYROM did it in order to have an official list with the name "Macedonia" and not "FYROM" in it and was granted that. Then Greece reacted and the US backed down and said that was an exception and nothing changes in this. And FYROM was dissapointed I'd guess. Albania needs all the help it can get too. I suppose they could easily be swayed not to put their names on the list but wasn't deemed important.

There are two counties which truly supported the war wholeheartdedly, their populations and their government. Denmark and the UK. About the UK there were huge resistance by the people though.

[Bereta_Eder]

Something about Italy Spain. That was internal EU pissing contest using Iraq's issue as leverage. Nothing to do with Iraq's war proper. Unfortunately they now pay the price for that by sending their troops there.

Poland and the other former eastern block countries. Largely similar with the Balkan situation. They thought they'd get favors from the US (it's characteristic and a bit funny that the Polish prime minister IIRC released a document which was completely opposed to his gov) and for those eastern countries future EU members they also thought they could use that as leverage for the EU. Miscalculation.

My point is, puting the name on the Iraq's list ironically enough but certaintly not surpisingly had nothing to do with the Iraq war. I'm particularly proud about little Greece I have to say. I thought that geopolitical necessities would make us put the name of the country on the list too. I'm happy to see this is not happening and I'm very optimistc. Either Greece has strengthened considerably the past few years to carve an intependent external policy or the inside reaction was so strong as to forbid the government to do anything else. Both pleasant and optimistic scenarios. And I bet for once Axi will have nothing to say about that

[Bereta_Eder]

Of course there's the other side of the story which needs to be said too. This is ironic as well. You have countries in blue which virtually did nothing about the war in the practical aspect. And then you have countries in red or white which helped though their conventional NATO obligations or even if they are neutral. So you have Ireland (nuetral) and Greece (NATO) and Germany (NATO) white red red which fulfilled their obligations through use of NATO bases as the chart defines and others which are blue which did not do anything either because they couldn't or didn't want to because their national interests dictate so. So there's also irony and hypocricy there as well. My point is that the blue white and red map is a hugely oversimplified way of looking at the matter IMHO.

[Sava]

Re: A Few Questions About The Iraq War

Originally posted by DaShi
Do you think President Bush started military action too soon?

yes and no... it should have been taken care of in 1991... having said that... I don't feel military action was necessary. Saddam was slowly being choked to death. In addition, the methods used to gain "public" support of the war were dishonest and immoral.

Did you feel that you had said everything you wanted to say about the pre-war issues at that time?

yes... although I suspect there were WMDs and that they would be used in conflict. I think it's a testament to the failure of the intelligence of the US and Britain, and the Bush admin, that there weren't WMD's. I remember a Rumsfeld quote. "We know where the WMD's are and we will get them."

I think something will be found, but it won't be the imminent threat we were told about.

Or were you bored of it by then and waiting for something new to occur?

I would have been content with nothing occuring... who knows... another 6 months or a year and maybe Saddam gets overthrown, or the world community joins in some military effort. A true coalition... not one of the bribed, cajoled and blackmailed.

Knowing that the war would be inevitable, would you prefer that it had occurred sooner or later?

as I said before... 1991 was a great time to take care of it... but as his son has, George Bush Sr. made a mistake.

Thanks.

your welcome

[MrFun]

Re: A Few Questions About The Iraq War

Originally posted by DaShi
I just want to get everyone's general opinion on this.
Do you think President Bush started military action too soon?
Did you feel that you had said everything you wanted to say about the pre-war issues at that time? Or were you bored of it by then and waiting for something new to occur?
Knowing that the war would be inevitable, would you prefer that it had occurred sooner or later?


Thanks.

Why didn't you just create a thread title that said, "Hey MTG, I got a few questions for you?"

[PLATO]

Originally posted by VJ
Good, fast edit

Too bad that the map info seems to be BS, judging by a quick glance.
Could you tell me where did you get your information about the map?

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

[Sava]

willing.html

btw, that map seems to reflect countries whose GOVERnMENTS have supported the war in some fashion... it doesn't reflect popular opinion.

Even the majority of people in our lapdog ally Britain don't support the war.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sava
willing.html

btw, that map seems to reflect countries whose GOVERnMENTS have supported the war in some fashion... it doesn't reflect popular opinion.

Even the majority of people in our lapdog ally Britain don't support the war.

Sava, Even in the US the populace has rarely supported war. WWI and WWII were big exceptions to our own history. During the Mexican war our government was very worried about insurrection due to the war. There is nothing unusual about popular opinion being against war. Governments will support such things when they see them in their own long term best interest. The question here is why did France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and Greece not see this in the long term best interest of their country?

[Patroklos]

I think it is a case of intelligent people in the know of goverment agencies making enlightened decisions while their people sat in blissful ignorance taking ideologiclal views becasue they could, they didn't have to worry about the horrendous consequences of not acting because their government s would do the right thing anyways and take all the flak.

War was right, even if Bush hadn't given any reasons. Saddam gave plenty.

-Pat

[chequita guevara]

Don't you mean "Coalition of the Billing?" Man, I'm sure glad Palau was on our side.

A majority of the world was against us, and still is. Will it translate into government change is the question?