US prepared to go it alone - allies warned.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Andrew1999
Can anybody over at the White House besides Powell even read a map? Afghanistan is completely landlocked. Iraq is almost landlocked. We need friends and allies just to get to them, much less do anything about it. Or do we just invade everybody between us and the target?

When they say unilateralist action, they mean the US conducting military operations on it's own. The opposite being like the Gulf War, where several nations actually did the fighting. Rights of passage and base usage is (would) already set up before hand.

[David Floyd]

Sovereign nations can obviously refuse to let us use our bases in their territory for war-making purposes. Just a quick point

[Velociryx]

"You're either with us, or against us."
-Quote from G. W. Bush

Clearly, that's his whole strategy, David.

If anybody so much as THINKS about denying the USA access to reach one of their targets, they'll be put on the $hit list, along with North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.

THAT is a terrifying thought, but in light of this latest bit, it certainly seems to be the case.

Gettin' downright spooky....

-=Vel=-

[Alexander's Horse]

This is crazy stuff. Why offend your allies?

[Guynemer]

This is hardly surprising. The Bush administration was hellbent on going it alone long before 9-11 ever happened. Remember the various international treaties and agreements that he refused to sign? The SDI-or-bust crusade? He's just applying his old attitude to the new situation.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Velociryx
THAT is a terrifying thought, but in light of this latest bit, it certainly seems to be the case.

Isn't this the war against terror?

[faded glory]

Go Bush

[Comrade Tribune]

The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

[Sikander]

Settle down people, your fears are overblown. Refusal to allow the U.S. to use a base will not put you on the same list as Iraq etc. The U.S. will not be going to war willy nilly around the world, and we will not be dragging our allies into any such stupidity either.

The U.S. will probably take out the government of Iraq, use the old carrot and stick on Iran and continue to let North Korea stew in it's own communist juices.

What Bush's statements mean is that we are not going to go to our NATO allies and ask for permission to act, and we may not even give warning of action. Obviously if some of our allies are going to help us they will be in the loop. But we are not going to give France a blueprint of our operation months in advance, because we fear that they will turn it over to our enemies just like they did in Serbia. Ditto with Greece, there are too many anti-Americans there to trust them with information that they don't need. What Bush is saying is that our allies do not get a veto on our unilateral activities.

The "If you are not with us you are against us." phrase is not aimed at bullying our allies, but prodding countries who may be sitting on the fence to choose whether they would like to have Al Qaida as an enemy or the U.S. We won't allow a country to allow itself to be used as a base for our enemies. If a state complains that they cannot take care of the Al Qaida problem within their borders, then we will help them. If they refuse, then we will consider them enemies for willfully allowing us to be attacked from land nominally under their control.

[Alexander's Horse]

The U.S. won't get very far without its allies.

Making yourself into a rogue state for nothing is very silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it is obvious that the 'War on Terrorism' from this point won't be an overt war. It'll be a covert war, using the CIA and elite military troops. So it isn't like we'll be invading new countries or anything unless they ask us to get involved.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

Sure, they opposed Taliban Wahabi fundamnetalism with its anti-Shi'ite fanaticism, but the Iranian regime has always had the spread of Shi'ite Islamic fundamentalism as one of its major goals; there are large numbers of Shi'ite Muslims in Afghanistan in regions bordering Iran, and many of them speak some form of Farsi. Iran is accused of trying to foment trouble between these shi'ites and the new government, as well as of allowing Al-Qaida terrorists to flee back to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere through Bandar Abbas.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
We won't allow a country to allow itself to be used as a base for our enemies. If a state complains that they cannot take care of the Al Qaida problem within their borders, then we will help them. If they refuse, then we will consider them enemies for willfully allowing us to be attacked from land nominally under their control.

The problem is if you say a country has an 'AlQuaida Problem', and they deny, and it´s your word against theirs, you expect the entire world to believe you without proof.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
...but the Iranian regime has always had the spread of Shi'ite Islamic fundamentalism as one of its major goals; there are large numbers of Shi'ite Muslims in Afghanistan in regions bordering Iran, and many of them speak some form of Farsi. Iran is accused of trying to foment trouble between these shi'ites and the new government, as well as of allowing Al-Qaida terrorists to flee back to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere through Bandar Abbas.

1- Spreading their religion is not terrorism. Where´s the problem?

2- Disagreement with the new Afghani government is not a crime, either.

3- Accusing Iran of helping people to escape to Saudi Arabia doesn´t make sense. If Saudi-Arabia really harbours terrorists, why do the US not threaten Saudi-Arabia? Try some other reason?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

Yes they were enemies of the Taliban, because of two things.

1) Shiia vs Sunni
2) Iran trying to foment rebellion in the ethnically Iranian parts of Afghanistan, especially around Herat.

The fact that the Taliban is no more gives your statement no meaning whatsoever.

Now the new regime is getting into position, and Iran has the same reasons for being the enemy of the new regime, except that #1 above is replaced with Shiia vs Secular. So they are trying to cause problems for the new government by supporting irredentists in the border region.

Iran is also undergoing a domestic political crisis. The popular elected government is being pushed aside by the unpopular hard liners, which is making the country increasingly unstable. One way that the hard liners think that they can increase their popularity is to foment an international crisis with the U.S. What better way to do that than to try to minimize or destroy the gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan by undermining the new government and allowing Al Qaida to escape?

The U.S. isn't going to allow Iran to thwart us so easily. All we are doing right now is informing the Iranian people (and possibly some of the elected government) of the things that it's hardliners are doing, and that we aren't going to put up with it.

You should really try to do more than read slanted crap like The Guardian if you want to have any idea what's really going on. Then perhaps you could post reasoned arguments with facts to back them up rather than empty trolls like this.