Days of Illusions, then Illuminations and Enlightenment: Weapons of Mass Destruction's Proliferators are on the run

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
George Bush has been an excellent President in regards to national security. Unless Kerry surprises me and puts together a strong security-oriented team, I'll be voting for Bush this fall.

By the way, this piece was taken from the Wall Street Journal. No link, sorry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMD Breakthrough

Post-Iraq, the world's proliferators are on the run.
Pardon us for interrupting the Beltway brawl over Iraq intelligence, but has anyone else noticed the recent landmark progress against nuclear proliferation? The latest breakthrough came this week in Pakistan, where a scientist confessed on television to his nuclear weapons deals during the 1990s.

Intelligence debates are good political drama, though CIA Director George Tenet's speech yesterday is a persuasive rebuttal to the charges that U.S. intelligence was "politicized." The news in his remarks is that the U.S. had prewar information "from a source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle" that Iraq had WMD.

While Iraq lacked a nuclear bomb, the source said Saddam "was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon" and had berated his Nuclear Weapons Committee for not getting one. That source and others may have overestimated the immediate nuclear threat, but we elect Presidents to make difficult security calls based on such imperfect information.

And in any case, let's recall why everyone cared about Iraq's WMD in the first place. The nightmare scenario, all too plausible after September 11, is that a dictator who trucks with terrorists will give them a nuclear weapon to explode on American soil. In recent weeks, the U.S. has made dramatic progress in busting up the global proliferation network that would make this possible, and much of the progress flows from President Bush's decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Abdul Qadeer Khan's TV tell-all on Wednesday established links among Islamabad, Tripoli, Tehran and Pyongyang, and showed how the fall of Baghdad damaged this network. Mr. Khan disclosed that he had traded nuclear know-how with North Korea, Iran and Libya in exchange for money and missile technology. His testimony will be invaluable in upsetting these channels of proliferation and putting further pressure on these would-be nuclear states.

These WMD dominoes began to fall last year at about the time Saddam's statue in Baghdad did. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi suddenly got serious about pledging to halt his burgeoning weapons program. Gadhafi's decision followed an interception of nuclear centrifuge parts under Mr. Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, a post-9/11 policy that seeks to disrupt weapons transfers on the oceans and in the air. The PSI has been derided by the same Clinton-era proliferation experts under whose noses Mr. Khan spread his technology.

A few weeks after Gadhafi cried uncle, Iran's mullahs invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to send scientists to inspect their nuclear facilities. Tehran needs to do much more, but its decision to at least pay lip service to IAEA inspections speaks volumes about how much the international security environment has changed.

U.N. inspectors who jetted to Tripoli and Tehran did not take long to find signs of Mr. Khan's handiwork. According to the Los Angeles Times, blueprints traced to him were found in both countries. In Iran a centrifuge program bore his imprint; in Libya, entire centrifuge assemblies may have been imported from Pakistan.

During his 26-year-career as the father of Pakistan's bomb, Mr. Khan also turned to North Korea, probably because its missiles are among the most advanced in the "axis of evil." U.S. intelligence believes Islamabad shared Mr. Khan's designs for the Pak-2 gas centrifuges. Pyongyang continues to resist global pressure to end its nuclear programs, but thanks to the falling WMD dominoes we know a lot more about them.

Regarding Pakistan, some in the West will want to criticize President Pervez Musharraf for pardoning Mr. Khan yesterday. No doubt the Pakistan military, of which General Musharraf is the ranking member, was aware of Mr. Khan's business, or at least turned a blind eye to it. The generals wanted a nuclear bomb to counter India's and they weren't going to let proliferation rules get in the way, especially in the 1990s when they were paying no price for it.

But the important point now is whether Mr. Musharraf cooperates with the U.S. in the future. The Pakistan President risked upsetting nationalists even by putting Mr. Khan under house arrest and making him confess on national TV. If he now lets U.S. officials debrief the scientist and track down his network, the intelligence windfall will count for much more than any punishment for Mr. Khan.

All of this anti-WMD progress contrasts dramatically with what took place during the late 1990s, when the U.S. was supposedly just as worried about nuclear proliferation. We now know that those were the years when Mr. Khan spread his nuclear wares, when Gadhafi gathered his centrifuges, when Iraq kicked out U.N. inspectors and Iran deceived the world, and when North Korea was preparing to enrich uranium even while it negotiated new "disarmament" deals with the Clinton Administration. One obvious conclusion is that none of these proliferators believed the U.S. or U.N. were serious about confronting them. And at the time they were right.

All of that changed with the Bush policy of challenging terrorists and the states that support them after 9/11. With the fall of the Taliban and Saddam, the world's dictators have learned that protecting terrorists or pursuing WMD can interfere with lifetime tenure. So they are deciding to turn state's evidence, against themselves and others. Or to put it in terms even Washington may understand: The Bush strategy is working.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history


I love how Dems say we acted alone here. They apparently have missed all the accounting of troops, supplies and vocal support from over 30 of the countries in the world. I will try to find the articles that you all obviously didn't read and post links for you in a few.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history


I love how Dems say we acted alone here. They apparently have missed all the accounting of troops, supplies and vocal support from over 30 of the countries in the world. I will try to find the articles that you all obviously didn't read and post links for you in a few.
How many of those Allies stood to benefit financially from us for partaking in the actions in Iraq?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

I love how Dems say we acted alone here. They apparently have missed all the accounting of troops, supplies and vocal support from over 30 of the countries in the world. I will try to find the articles that you all obviously didn't read and post links for you in a few.

They think France and Germany IS the world; so if they aren't with us, the world isn't with us...most have argued that both of those countries have done more for Europe than the U.S....just don't ask them to be more specific...
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history


I love how Dems say we acted alone here. They apparently have missed all the accounting of troops, supplies and vocal support from over 30 of the countries in the world. I will try to find the articles that you all obviously didn't read and post links for you in a few.

Great, find the link. Also make sure you list the percentages of ordinance/troops/money/supplies they give, versus what we put up.

Fsck vocal support. Vocal support from a govenrment doesn't mean anything if their people don't support it - at least in free societies with elections where the voice of the people is what is heard.

And of those 30 countries, most of them are mostly insignificant, the majority of them being central or eastern European and even then only the government gives support, not the people. This is a critical difference.

The ONLY nation that gave any support at all, that is, greater than 1%, was the UK and that will be the defeat of Labour. The fact that we accounted for over 95% in every category except maybe financially, (where we were nonetheless the biggest funder by far relative to everyone else) shows pretty well that we acted uniltaterally.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: beer
Unfortunately the methods that GWB has chosen have made us the enemy of the world - allies, neutrals, and enemies alike. Most of the Brits hate us for coercing them into what they see as an illigitimate war; French and Germans are obviously opposed and they are even frustrated more because they were right - there were no WMD. The only allies we seemingly have left are central europe countries like Poland and unfortunately that does not make up for the lost support of the UK.

Bush may have achieved what you see as positive ends, but the means to achieve the ends will bite us in the ass. Unilaterally we do not have the resoruces to fight this war forever.

EDIT: oh and it would be nice if you could remove some of those dashes from the OP since they run and make me horzontally scroll on my laptop which is 1024x768, with no subscriber access and thus, the ads on the left.

As Powell's excellent article in Foreign Affairs last month stated, we are working with our friends and allies in this war. We may be unpopular, but we're doing the right thing and most of the world recognizes that. BTW, no one said this task was going to be easy or bring cheers from all circles of the globe. But the end is good for America and good for the world.

And this is the exact type of convulted thinking that the Bush administration represents. We did NOT work with our allies in this war. How could you say we did? We took unilateral, preemptive action with questionable evidence to a war with circumstances that just didn't exist. If Bush wanted to make it a Human Rights issue, as he apperantly does now, and given that multilateral action worked against Milosevic just a few years ago, why couldn't Bush do the same? This has been beaten to death and it will do no more good here.

There is nothing more I want to see than Labour's defeat in England and the royal fscking of Bush by our only significant national ally left. Twenty years from now I can only hope and pray with every ounce of my body that Bush goes down as the worst president in modern history


I love how Dems say we acted alone here. They apparently have missed all the accounting of troops, supplies and vocal support from over 30 of the countries in the world. I will try to find the articles that you all obviously didn't read and post links for you in a few.

Great, find the link. Also make sure you list the percentages of ordinance/troops/money/supplies they give, versus what we put up.

Fsck vocal support. Vocal support from a govenrment doesn't mean anything if their people don't support it - at least in free societies with elections where the voice of the people is what is heard.

And of those 30 countries, most of them are mostly insignificant, the majority of them being central or eastern European and even then only the government gives support, not the people. This is a critical difference.

The ONLY nation that gave any support at all, that is, greater than 1%, was the UK and that will be the defeat of Labour. The fact that we accounted for over 95% in every category except maybe financially, (where we were nonetheless the biggest funder by far relative to everyone else) shows pretty well that we acted uniltaterally.

Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;)

CkG
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;)

CkG

For all intents and purposes it was unilateral. How was it not? A single entity funding and providing arms for 95% of the war in a world where they control only less than a third of the world's GDP is unilateral. To think otherwise is to be blind in ignorance.

No one around the world and more than half in this country did not support the war.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: beer
GameIs21 - where is that link?

You mean you have no actual knowledge of the roles of other countries, yet posted about their lack of support anyway? I'm appalled...no wait, I'm not. :)

Don't beg others to educate you. Google it yourself, dingleberry.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;)

CkG

For all intents and purposes it was unilateral. How was it not? A single entity funding and providing arms for 95% of the war in a world where they control only less than a third of the world's GDP is unilateral. To think otherwise is to be blind in ignorance.

No one around the world and more than half in this country did not support the war.

If you think that way then almost anything the US does can be called Unilateral.
Or does it loose that tag if one of these countries are involved - Germany/ France/ Russia?

That's what I thought.

CkG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by:CADkindaGUY

Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;) CkG

Why should you be surprised, You, Rush, Hannity and The President at "Re-defining" like what Urgency means and NO Doubt means etc etc , Clinton was just a warm up.

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by:CADkindaGUY

Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;) CkG

Why should you be surprised, You, Rush, Hannity and The President at "Re-defining" like what Urgency means and NO Doubt means etc etc , Clinton was just a warm up.

Make that CKG, Rush, Hanntiy, The President, and John Kerry...thanks.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,827
6,782
126
Did the United Nations vote to go to war? Was the war UN directed, or are we still asking for more time to find WMD when we told the UN time for that was up. This was was the product of a handful of psychopaths in the American government. They should face war crimes trial before the world. The means justify the ends.......evil can fight evil. Right!

The insane will always think that the way to keep the insanity of others in check is through the threat of force and death. They think this because they are insane, being that it is what controls them. But fear breeds hatred and contempt in those who are controlled, it breeds more insanity and the conviction that only by turning the tables can the subjugated insane be safe. Thus began the wheel of Karma of endless violence and war. Only Truth, Love, and Knowledge can save the world and it does so but one soul at a time. We are all asleep in the middle of Heaven. Everything we long and struggle for is there, 180 degrees from where we look. You poor sad humans, you have failed at the most basic principle in any quest. You have failed to understand what a human is.

Mulla Nasrudin was seen on his hands and knees searching the ground outside his house. "What are you looking for", somebody asked. "The key to my house" replied the Mulla. "Where did you loose it?" asked the neighbors. "Inside", said Nasrudin. 'Then why are you looking out here for it!, someone exclaimed. "Oh", said the Mulla, "there's more light here."
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Only Truth, Love, and Knowledge can save the world

True, but those are three things being battered out of people's souls in the Middle East and we've had planes flown into our buildings for it, though, in truth, things could be much much worse especially since the inaction of Clinton seems to have emboldened the terrorists.

Elimination of totalitarian rule is requisite to solving the crisis in the Middle East. Saddam was just the only dictator foolish enough to not bed over backwards to prove he posed no threat and, therefore, was the only one thus far to give us justification to remove him from power and begin releasing his oppressed citizenry from the bondages of lies, hate, and ignorance.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: beer
GameIs21 - where is that link?

You mean you have no actual knowledge of the roles of other countries, yet posted about their lack of support anyway? I'm appalled...no wait, I'm not. :)

Don't beg others to educate you. Google it yourself, dingleberry.

He offered it, now I want to see it. The numbers people are putting forth are not accurate. I myself have a rough idea of what the actual multilateral numbers are, but I want to see HIS link and HIS source. He offered it 5 hours ago, where is it?
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Great! Now even "Unilateral" is being redefined!
I'm really starting to wonder what "is" is any more.;)

CkG

For all intents and purposes it was unilateral. How was it not? A single entity funding and providing arms for 95% of the war in a world where they control only less than a third of the world's GDP is unilateral. To think otherwise is to be blind in ignorance.

No one around the world and more than half in this country did not support the war.

If you think that way then almost anything the US does can be called Unilateral.
Or does it loose that tag if one of these countries are involved - Germany/ France/ Russia?

That's what I thought.

CkG

The air war against the Serbs was not unilteral in this since. We did not supply 95+% of all troops/ordance/funds. We supplied the majority, yes, but not the overwhelming majority, and also an international coalition, NATO, engaged in the war, under the authority of NATO governing bodies and with NATO objectives. That was not unilateral.

Desert Storm was not unilateral under the same pretense. Once again, the US supplied most but not an overwhelming majority (95+%) of all ordanance/troops/funds. And we didn't do it under the flag of US Imperialism either.

The routine air raids and the enforcement of the no-fly zone, and operations such as Desert Fox, were done under the UN Mandate. This invasion wasn't, and was CLEARLY unilateral.