CLAIM vs. FACT: The President on Meet the Press

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
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?
Not sure what you are fishing for.

UK(has a more capable military than france) and Austrailia provided military support.
There were regional powers in the mideast that provided logistical support.
 

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
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?
Not sure what you are fishing for.

UK(has a more capable military than france) and Austrailia provided military support.
There were regional powers in the mideast that provided logistical support.
not fishing for anything realy, just curious about how other than myself see the world :)
gone to sleep, gn
 

villager

Senior member
Oct 17, 2002
373
0
0
An interesting story about the tubes was that a reporter visited the site that contained the tubes, and guess what. The american army did not even bother to gather up the supposed nuclear production tubes. The reporter found them laying on the ground and the local villagers using them for roof drainage pipes. If Bush really believed that these tubes were for weapons production, dont you think they would have gathered them up to keep them away from terrorist?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.
No?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY