CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
the fact that he didn't say "no doubt" in the interview does not chage the fact that he did say it, nor does it change the relvence to the issue at hand.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
This article is cherry picked statement that only tell one of the side of story. I could find facts instead of quotes(which seem to be facts in this article) that refute a large number of the "facts" listed.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Mind if I add one of my own? (But instead of 'Claim' and 'Fact', it's 'Assertion' and 'What?' . ;)

Assertion: "I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard."
"I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard,..."
"What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is ? is ? may not be a true service."


What: What? Who are these people?

;)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
This article is cherry picked statement that only tell one of the side of story.
That may be, but does that somehow negate the truth of those facts? Much of what Bush said in his interview was disingenuous. They show examples and support them with facts. While I agree Bush got some facts right, that doesn't excuse those where he was less honest.


I could find facts instead of quotes(which seem to be facts in this article) that refute a large number of the "facts" listed.
Not sure I follow your meaning here. Can you give an example or two?


Great post, Gaard. Thanks.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
executive summary:

Bush is an idiot
Bush is a liar
Bush is immoral

gee! it's the liberal trifecta, the Democrat mantra, the DNC talking points...yea, yea, yea, same old stuff over and over

interesting how such a "rube" was able to fool all you smart liberals....

another liberal ploy...state something that is opinion as fact..
your post (if you actually wanted to be accurate) should have read "CLAIM vs. CLAIM", or even "FACT versus CLAIM"
heartsurgeon prove that:

Bush is not an idiot
Bush is not a liar
Bush is not immoral

please include links to your sources.:D:D:D:D:D
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
No, it doesn't "prove" anything. Just because YOU think it should have carried more weight(now in hind sight) doesn't mean it was "dismissed" and never considered. It could have been outweighed by other things. The whole "article" makes assumptions like that.
While what you are saying is technically true, Cad, its still crap ;). The aspects that outweighed the warnings in the intelligence should never have been on the scale to begin with.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,713
5,161
126
The drumbeat conservative whine about liberals is like a big dog dump on the front lawn.
 

replicator

Senior member
Oct 7, 2003
431
0
0
Excellent article.

Those that think otherwise, why not attack the arguments put forth, rather than the source like others said. I am very interested to hear a solid defense for the Bush Administration.

As someone who agrees with most points in the article, I'd like to see the other side, but have yet to find any people who can can argue it with any reason or logic.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
This article is cherry picked statement that only tell one of the side of story.
That may be, but does that somehow negate the truth of those facts? Much of what Bush said in his interview was disingenuous. They show examples and support them with facts. While I agree Bush got some facts right, that doesn't excuse those where he was less honest.


I could find facts instead of quotes(which seem to be facts in this article) that refute a large number of the "facts" listed.
Not sure I follow your meaning here. Can you give an example or two?
Let me give a couple examples. I have little desire to pick apart each one, but let me do a couple.

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT ? INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.
While the UN inspectors did not find much in the terms WMD, they also found no evidence that Iraqs known weapons stocks had been destroyed and weapons dismantled.


On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq."
The UN did say this, but they also said that pakistan did not have a nuke program until they tested one. Same could be said for NK and libyia.


On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium.
This statement is just not true.
linkage

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants. By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said. A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration's statement.
There appears to be no questions about Iraq trying to import these tubes for uses in weapons programs it was not supposed to have. While the IAEA determined that the tubes imported would not likely be used for a nuclear program, it was still possible if the tubes were modified.



At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]


Blix at this point had still accounted for the weapons stocks the UN thought Iraq had.
This also fails to mentioned that UK intel had iraq trying to get uranium from nigeria, this is seperate from that forged document.
Germany also beleived that Iraq had plans for small pox.
There was not a country that thought Iraq was living up to the disarming agreements of the gulf war.




And that is just one...
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nice... Three conservative replies in a row, and not one mention of the facts brought up in the article...just attacking the source.

Some things never change..

Edit: I wonder if heartsurgeon has a special key mapped on his keyboard that allows him to easily input the word "liberal" into all his posts with just the pressing of a single key....the liberal key.

;)
That's because they are very Happy with their President and Commander In Chief of course and will be voting for him again in a few months no matter what.

Aren't you happy? Don't you believe every word he said too?
arrogants can not accept the truth because the truth hurts

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2 U 400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Maxtor 91531U3 15GB
2x Western Digital WD400BB 40GB serials
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1



 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
With all due respect, your examples show exactly the opposite of your conclusion.
Originally posted by: charrison
Let me give a couple examples. I have little desire to pick apart each one, but let me do a couple.

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT ? INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.

While the UN inspectors did not find much in the terms WMD, they also found no evidence that Iraqs known weapons stocks had been destroyed and weapons dismantled.
Finding no evidence stocks had been destroyed does not constitute evidence Iraq possessed WMD. It is evidence of a lack of evidence, nothing more.


On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq."

The UN did say this, but they also said that pakistan did not have a nuke program until they tested one. Same could be said for NK and libyia.
Once again, that Pakistan had a nuclear program does not constitute evidence Iraq had one too. Note that the CIA also concluded Iraq did NOT have a nukes program.


On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium.

This statement is just not true.
I will omit the whole quote for brevity, but I can refute it point by point in context if necessary. El Baradei's statement is accurate.

Re. Powell's claims, they are incorrect. The tubes were spec'd to match the tubes used in the Italian rocket they were trying to copy. According to the articles I read, the anodized finish was NOT suitable for use in centrifuges, one of the key clues these tubes were really intended for rockets. Note the article you quote documents many of these findings.

These tubes may have been destined for proscribed rockets, but even this is not clear. I've seen the right's claim Iraq could not have these rockets, but I haven't seen it backed by any of the analysts. Either way, it is the consensus of virtually everyone except the Bush administration that these tubes were not suitable for use in a uranium enrichment centrifuge.

The suggestion the tubes could maybe, possibly be modified is both irrelevant, and effectively wrong. They were the wrong dimensions, thickness, porosity, and surface treatment for centrifuge use. They could be "modified" only in the same sense that aluminum ingots could be modified to make appropriate tubes.

I also suggest you read the "60 Minutes II - The Man Who Knew" thread for more information about this bogus claim. Our scientists at Oak Ridge agreed the tubes were not suitable for centrifuge use, a fact the Bush administration chose to ignore because it undermined their most terrifying selling point, the fiction that Iraq was about to nuke the U.S.


At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]

Blix at this point had still accounted for the weapons stocks the UN thought Iraq had.
And again, lack of evidence does NOT constitute evidence.


This also fails to mentioned that UK intel had iraq trying to get uranium from nigeria, this is seperate from that forged document.
That's because it isn't true. As I documented at the time, the "other" U.K. intel was determined to have come from other countries who, in turn, based their intel on the same forged document from Italy. This was the only "evidence" they had of Iraq's alleged purpose, while they had significant real evidence indicating it never happened.


Germany also beleived that Iraq had plans for small pox.
There was not a country that thought Iraq was living up to the disarming agreements of the gulf war.
Neither statement refutes the cited "fact" -- INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Bow:

The only way the right wingers will accept anything is by having it POUNDED into them:

1. Civil Rights for Blacks-Had to be pounded into them.

2. Voting Rights for Women-Had to be pounded into them.

3. Equal employment opportunity-You guessed it, pounded into them.

4. The end of the war in Vietnam-Uh, they were very slow on this one, but it too had to be POUNDED into them.

and the list goes on, and on.

What is so sad about this behavior is that it is so predictable. This has been going on for at least 5000 years because some people are constitutionally incapable of accepting change or the truth when if flies in the face of their prejudices and whims.

You have much more patience than me. Most of these guys are being complete boneheads....

When Anand starts handing out Mauve Hearts (an AT version of the Purple Heart) I will nominate you to be one of the first recipients for wounds received while delivering whithering fire to the assembled meatheads. :)

-Robert
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect, your examples show exactly the opposite of your conclusion.
Originally posted by: charrison
Let me give a couple examples. I have little desire to pick apart each one, but let me do a couple.

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT ? INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.

While the UN inspectors did not find much in the terms WMD, they also found no evidence that Iraqs known weapons stocks had been destroyed and weapons dismantled.
Finding no evidence stocks had been destroyed does not constitute evidence Iraq possessed WMD. It is evidence of a lack of evidence, nothing more.


On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq."

The UN did say this, but they also said that pakistan did not have a nuke program until they tested one. Same could be said for NK and libyia.
Once again, that Pakistan had a nuclear program does not constitute evidence Iraq had one too. Note that the CIA also concluded Iraq did NOT have a nukes program.


On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium.

This statement is just not true.
I will omit the whole quote for brevity, but I can refute it point by point in context if necessary. El Baradei's statement is accurate.

Re. Powell's claims, they are incorrect. The tubes were spec'd to match the tubes used in the Italian rocket they were trying to copy. According to the articles I read, the anodized finish was NOT suitable for use in centrifuges, one of the key clues these tubes were really intended for rockets. Note the article you quote documents many of these findings.

These tubes may have been destined for proscribed rockets, but even this is not clear. I've seen the right's claim Iraq could not have these rockets, but I haven't seen it backed by any of the analysts. Either way, it is the consensus of virtually everyone except the Bush administration that these tubes were not suitable for use in a uranium enrichment centrifuge.

The suggestion the tubes could maybe, possibly be modified is both irrelevant, and effectively wrong. They were the wrong dimensions, thickness, porosity, and surface treatment for centrifuge use. They could be "modified" only in the same sense that aluminum ingots could be modified to make appropriate tubes.

I also suggest you read the "60 Minutes II - The Man Who Knew" thread for more information about this bogus claim. Our scientists at Oak Ridge agreed the tubes were not suitable for centrifuge use, a fact the Bush administration chose to ignore because it undermined their most terrifying selling point, the fiction that Iraq was about to nuke the U.S.


At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]

Blix at this point had still accounted for the weapons stocks the UN thought Iraq had.
And again, lack of evidence does NOT constitute evidence.


This also fails to mentioned that UK intel had iraq trying to get uranium from nigeria, this is seperate from that forged document.
That's because it isn't true. As I documented at the time, the "other" U.K. intel was determined to have come from other countries who, in turn, based their intel on the same forged document from Italy. This was the only "evidence" they had of Iraq's alleged purpose, while they had significant real evidence indicating it never happened.


Germany also beleived that Iraq had plans for small pox.
There was not a country that thought Iraq was living up to the disarming agreements of the gulf war.
Neither statement refutes the cited "fact" -- INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD.
We will have to agree to read these things differently.

You seem to prepared to trust the UN and Saddam, I on the other hand do not. There was enough evidence before this started to show that Iraq was up to no good.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
We will have to agree to read these things differently.

You seem to prepared to trust the UN and Saddam, I on the other hand do not. There was enough evidence before this started to show that Iraq was up to no good.
Please show me where I suggested I trusted Saddam.


I did have some trust in the U.N. inspections process. More importantly, however, I did not trust the Bush administration. When Iraq became a grave and gathering
threat overnight, my BS detector sounded. It just didn't ring true. The more they tried to sell it, the less I believed it. The more they tried to smear Blix, Ritter, the U.N., and everyone else who opposed them, the more zealous they became in suppressing dissent, the more apparent it became to me they were lying. People with character and integrity don't act that way. People who believe what they're saying don't resort to such demagoguery.

Having piqued my interest, I started doing my homework. I started reading in depth, especially non-U.S. media. The more I read, the more convinced I became that there were huge holes in Bush's story. I saw Blix make progress and Bush dismiss it. I watched Powell's pony show and realized his "facts, not assertions" were spin, suggesting conclusions not supported by the evidence he presented.

While I assumed Iraq did have some WMD's, it became obvious Iraq posed little threat to the U.S. Bush wanted a war, and Iraq was a convenient target. That was wrong. One does NOT go to war unless it is absolutely necessary, unless it is the only remaining option to defend this country or our allies.

Bush turned to war as a first resort. By his own admission -- now -- Iraq was not an imminent threat. That should be troubling to all Americans since it was the only legitimate excuse for rushing to invade Iraq. By conceding Iraq was not an imminent threat, Bush also concedes that we had time. We had time to let the inspections process continue. We had time to gather better intelligence. We had time to build a truly broad coalition. We had time to avoid killing thousands of innocent people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
We will have to agree to read these things differently.

You seem to prepared to trust the UN and Saddam, I on the other hand do not. There was enough evidence before this started to show that Iraq was up to no good.
Please show me where I suggested I trusted Saddam.


I did have some trust in the U.N. inspections process. More importantly, however, I did not trust the Bush administration. When Iraq became a grave and gathering
threat overnight, my BS detector sounded. It just didn't ring true. The more they tried to sell it, the less I believed it. The more they tried to smear Blix, Ritter, the U.N., and everyone else who opposed them, the more zealous they became in suppressing dissent, the more apparent it became to me they were lying. People with character and integrity don't act that way. People who believe what they're saying don't resort to such demagoguery.

Having piqued my interest, I started doing my homework. I started reading in depth, especially non-U.S. media. The more I read, the more convinced I became that there were huge holes in Bush's story. I saw Blix make progress and Bush dismiss it. I watched Powell's pony show and realized his "facts, not assertions" were spin, suggesting conclusions not supported by the evidence he presented.

While I assumed Iraq did have some WMD's, it became obvious Iraq posed little threat to the U.S. Bush wanted a war, and Iraq was a convenient target. That was wrong. One does NOT go to war unless it is absolutely necessary, unless it is the only remaining option to defend this country or our allies.

Bush turned to war as a first resort. By his own admission -- now -- Iraq was not an imminent threat. That should be troubling to all Americans since it was the only legitimate excuse for rushing to invade Iraq. By conceding Iraq was not an imminent threat, Bush also concedes that we had time. We had time to let the inspections process continue. We had time to gather better intelligence. We had time to build a truly broad coalition. We had time to avoid killing thousands of innocent people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is where we will have to disagree again. The policy of containing Iraq was failling. We were spending tens billions of dollars on that, which would likely have lead to have another north korea if given the time.

I guess your definition of broad coalistion means "including france" ? The same france that according to howard dean, will always do the opposite of what the US wants.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
This is where we will have to disagree again. The policy of containing Iraq was failling. We were spending tens billions of dollars on that, which would likely have lead to have another north korea if given the time.
First, please show me where I suggested I trusted Saddam. Do you actually believe that, or was that perhaps a little over the top?

In any case, regardless of one's opinion about containment failing, do you truly believe the urgency was so great that we could not have waited a few more months, another year, whatever was appropriate? We knew our intelligence was either out-of-date or second/third hand. We had inspectors on the ground again, they were granted access to everything they requested, they were successfully forcing Iraq to destroy questionable weapons, and they were undoubtedly positioned to start gathering first-hand intel again. Given all that, wouldn't it have been far less reckless to wait for a while?


I guess your definition of broad coalistion means "including france" ? The same france that according to howard dean, will always do the opposite of what the US wants.
Sorry, no sale. Our "coalition" lacked most of the major players who supported us in 1991. Further, most of the nations who were "supporting" us did so in name only. Instead of continuing the fiction of this coalition, please consider:
Originally posted by: me
The "Coalition of the Willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

I stand by what I said before, "No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues."
By and large, the rest of the world opposed our invasion.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
and about the support in indevidual countries, the majority population of only two countries supported the invasion when it started, the US and Israel.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
This is where we will have to disagree again. The policy of containing Iraq was failling. We were spending tens billions of dollars on that, which would likely have lead to have another north korea if given the time.
First, please show me where I suggested I trusted Saddam. Do you actually believe that, or was that perhaps a little over the top?

In any case, regardless of one's opinion about containment failing, do you truly believe the urgency was so great that we could not have waited a few more months, another year, whatever was appropriate? We knew our intelligence was either out-of-date or second/third hand. We had inspectors on the ground again, they were granted access to everything they requested, they were successfully forcing Iraq to destroy questionable weapons, and they were undoubtedly positioned to start gathering first-hand intel again. Given all that, wouldn't it have been far less reckless to wait for a while?


I guess your definition of broad coalistion means "including france" ? The same france that according to howard dean, will always do the opposite of what the US wants.
Sorry, no sale. Our "coalition" lacked most of the major players who supported us in 1991. Further, most of the nations who were "supporting" us did so in name only. Instead of continuing the fiction of this coalition, please consider:
Originally posted by: me
The "Coalition of the Willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

I stand by what I said before, "No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues."
By and large, the rest of the world opposed our invasion.
The only major players missing from this coalition was france and germany. I beleive over 40 countries contributed to the gulf war 2. The coalition from the gulf war was pretty shakey as well.

Most of those 11 on the security council are not major players.
france, germany, china and russia are the only major players of those 11. Only france and germany helped during the first gulf war.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
The only major players missing from this coalition was france and germany. I beleive over 40 countries contributed to the gulf war 2. The coalition from the gulf war was pretty shakey as well.

Most of those 11 on the security council are not major players. France, germany, china and russia are the only major players of those 11. Only france and germany helped during the first gulf war.
What about Canada and Mexico? China and India are not major players? Do we dismiss the significance of virtually all of Africa, South America, and Central America? Both continents? How about Saudi Arabia and most of the other Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action?

Is there no significance to the lack of support from countries representing 80% of the world's population? 80% of the world GDP excluding the U.S. and Britain? No significance to Britain and Australia being the only countries to offer more than 200 troops in their unified show of "support"?

You're right. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.


 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
charrison,
what is your list of "major players" in the world?
depends. Are we talking political? economic? or military?
all, since all those strenghts are important in the world of politics
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
This is where we will have to disagree again. The policy of containing Iraq was failling. We were spending tens billions of dollars on that, which would likely have lead to have another north korea if given the time.
First, please show me where I suggested I trusted Saddam. Do you actually believe that, or was that perhaps a little over the top?

In any case, regardless of one's opinion about containment failing, do you truly believe the urgency was so great that we could not have waited a few more months, another year, whatever was appropriate? We knew our intelligence was either out-of-date or second/third hand. We had inspectors on the ground again, they were granted access to everything they requested, they were successfully forcing Iraq to destroy questionable weapons, and they were undoubtedly positioned to start gathering first-hand intel again. Given all that, wouldn't it have been far less reckless to wait for a while?
Any comments re. this part? You're a rational guy (for a right winger, that is ;) ). I'm interested in your thoughts.


Edit: fixed nesting
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
charrison,
what is your list of "major players" in the world?
depends. Are we talking political? economic? or military?
all, since all those strenghts are important in the world of politics
In relation to this thread...

By US standards there are few conventional military powers. Most countries with any military power do it by volume not technology(china/nk are good examples of volume). Every time there is a UN operation, it is the US carrying most of the weight of the operation(bosnia,kosovo, gulf war one).

Economy wise Europe is suffering a bit right now, but France still has significant economic and political power over Europe..

The only real powers(economic, military or politica) that opposed the operation in iraq were france, germany,china and russia. China and Russia sat out the first one.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
charrison,
what is your list of "major players" in the world?
depends. Are we talking political? economic? or military?
all, since all those strenghts are important in the world of politics
In relation to this thread...

By US standards there are few conventional military powers. Most countries with any military power do it by volume not technology(china/nk are good examples of volume). Every time there is a UN operation, it is the US carrying most of the weight of the operation(bosnia,kosovo, gulf war one).

Economy wise Europe is suffering a bit right now, but France still has significant economic and political power over Europe..

The only real powers(economic, military or politica) that opposed the operation in iraq were france, germany,china and russia. China and Russia sat out the first one.
But what "real" powers supported the invasion? and what about regional powers?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY