Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

[pErvinalia]

I'm more interested in why you spell certain things funny, like "Al Qaeta" (and there's another common one you do that escapes me at the moment).

[Coito ergo sum]

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... ge-w-bush/

George W. Bush was widely mocked by the Left during the Iraq War, with liberals jeering at the “coalition of the willing,” which included in its ranks some minnows such as Moldova and Kazkhstan. Michael Moore, in his rather silly documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, went to great lengths to lampoon the Iraq War alliance. But the coalition also contained, as I pointed out in Congressional testimony back in 2007, Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO alliance, as well as Japan and South Korea. In Europe, France and Germany were the only large-scale countries that sat the war out, with 12 of the 25 members of the European Union represented. The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.

As it stands, President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

There can be no doubt that David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons was a huge blow to President Obama, and has dominated the US news networks this morning. The absence of Britain in any American-led military action significantly weakens Obama’s position on the world stage, and dramatically undercuts the Obama administration. The vote reflected not only a lack of confidence in the Commons in the prime minister’s Syria strategy, it also demonstrated a striking lack of confidence in Barack Obama and US leadership.

In fairness, it is not a comparable position.

Jets have not flown into tall buildings lately in the USA. There isn't a mass scare that Syria has attacked or intends to attack the USA. Hence,

The idea of there being an "imminent threat" from Iraq was raised because it was insufficient to merely claim that Hussein gassed and committed other atrocities against his own people.

Here, there isn't even an arguable imminent threat. So, how would that possibly make the humanitarian grounds more acceptable?

Iraq also massacred its own people by the hundreds of thousands, with and without chemical weapons, and there was no argument about that. The point was that attacking Iraq was not acceptable because they did not pose an "imminent threat" to the Coalition countries. Neither does Syria, does it?

Remember the mantra about how there are humanitarian issues all over the world, why do we choose Iraq? (cough... oil .. .cough cough). Now, doesn't that apply? Isn't Syria an oil producing country, and certainly vitally strategically important in terms of control of the greater middle eastern oil region?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm more interested in why you spell certain things funny, like "Al Qaeta" (and there's another common one you do that escapes me at the moment).

I spell it different ways. Al Qaeda, Al Qaida, Al Qaeta, hyphen, no hyphen. Is it Moslem, Muslim, Musselman? Is it assalaam alaikum, assalamu 'alaykam, as-salam alaykum, as-salamu alaykum?

It's all a bunch of gibberish anyway.

It's like I was once told by a guy operating a gyro joint in Manhattan many years ago. I asked him what the correct pronunciation of gyro was. He answered "jeero, jiro, geero, giro, yeero, yiro -- it's all correct."

[laklak]

We have a LOT of credulousbility. The fucking sheep will believe anything they're told.

GWB + International Coalition + Congressional approval + massive public support = war criminal.

O'Bammy + France (well, sort of, maybe, kind of) = Great Leader of the Free World.

Go figure.

[Coito ergo sum]

We have a LOT of credulousbility. The fucking sheep will believe anything they're told.

GWB + International Coalition + Congressional approval + massive public support = war criminal.

O'Bammy + France (well, sort of, maybe, kind of) = Great Leader of the Free World.

Go figure.

And Bush even, arguably, had UN approval, as the Resolution 1441 was interpreted as being self-executing. At least we had UN condemnation of Iraq, and the threat of "serious consequences" which would ensue. The argument was that since Hussein did not comply, the serious consequences were to ensue without further need of another vote.

With Syria, we have a UN general assembly resolution that "expresses grave concern" that Syria might be using chem weapons, and deploring the violence in Syria, as well as calling for UN inspectors to be allowed in. That's it.

What about giving it time for the UN processes to work? What about a new vote in the UN to address Syria ignoring the earlier resolutions?

What happened to the arguments about how the UN was the only body that could authorize a war that wasn't in self-defense? Isn't that an argument anymore? Is anyone hearing that argument made?

Now, many of the people that opposed the Iraq war as a war crime because it did not have UN approval are suggesting we don't need UN approval, and supporting military action when there is no imminent threat from Syria (other than domestically).

[Cormac]

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... ge-w-bush/

George W. Bush was widely mocked by the Left during the Iraq War, with liberals jeering at the “coalition of the willing,” which included in its ranks some minnows such as Moldova and Kazkhstan. Michael Moore, in his rather silly documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, went to great lengths to lampoon the Iraq War alliance. But the coalition also contained, as I pointed out in Congressional testimony back in 2007, Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO alliance, as well as Japan and South Korea. In Europe, France and Germany were the only large-scale countries that sat the war out, with 12 of the 25 members of the European Union represented. The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.

As it stands, President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

There can be no doubt that David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons was a huge blow to President Obama, and has dominated the US news networks this morning. The absence of Britain in any American-led military action significantly weakens Obama’s position on the world stage, and dramatically undercuts the Obama administration. The vote reflected not only a lack of confidence in the Commons in the prime minister’s Syria strategy, it also demonstrated a striking lack of confidence in Barack Obama and US leadership.

In fairness, it is not a comparable position.

Jets have not flown into tall buildings lately in the USA. There isn't a mass scare that Syria has attacked or intends to attack the USA. Hence,

The idea of there being an "imminent threat" from Iraq was raised because it was insufficient to merely claim that Hussein gassed and committed other atrocities against his own people.

Here, there isn't even an arguable imminent threat. So, how would that possibly make the humanitarian grounds more acceptable?

Iraq also massacred its own people by the hundreds of thousands, with and without chemical weapons, and there was no argument about that. The point was that attacking Iraq was not acceptable because they did not pose an "imminent threat" to the Coalition countries. Neither does Syria, does it?

Remember the mantra about how there are humanitarian issues all over the world, why do we choose Iraq? (cough... oil .. .cough cough). Now, doesn't that apply? Isn't Syria an oil producing country, and certainly vitally strategically important in terms of control of the greater middle eastern oil region?

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.

[Seth]

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.

e
Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.

A cease-fire was announced and agreed to conditioned on Saddam's full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam obstructed and played shell games with the UN for 12 years, in spite of 14 UN resolutions that he fess up and allow unrestricted access by the UN.

During that time Saddam used everything at his command to put on a convincing show that he DID have WMDs (which he actually did: Sarin, VX and Mustard Gas) and was very successful in doing so, so much so that 40 nations agreed that the terms of the cease-fire had been violated and that renewing hostilities was appropriate and necessary.

And the Coalition did so.

Plenty of evidence, plenty of threat, plenty of justification for taking him out. 11 years and a bit more than enough.

[rainbow]

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.

e
Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.

A cease-fire was announced and agreed to conditioned on Saddam's full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam obstructed and played shell games with the UN for 12 years, in spite of 14 UN resolutions that he fess up and allow unrestricted access by the UN.

During that time Saddam used everything at his command to put on a convincing show that he DID have WMDs (which he actually did: Sarin, VX and Mustard Gas) and was very successful in doing so, so much so that 40 nations agreed that the terms of the cease-fire had been violated and that renewing hostilities was appropriate and necessary.

And the Coalition did so.

Plenty of evidence, plenty of threat, plenty of justification for taking him out. 11 years and a bit more than enough.

You'll just carry on believing this, 'till your dying day.

You were lied to by your government. You are still being lied to.
Get used to it.

[Coito ergo sum]

[quote="Cormac"

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.[/quote]

But there was a humanitarian crisis, and if that is sufficient now, it would be sufficient then, even if the Bush Admin was wrong on imminent threat. It is odd, in my view, for anyone to support intervention in Syria now if one opposed intervention in Iraq then.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, at the time the US attacked Iraq, there was no imminent threat either - there was a trumped up tissue of lies.

e
Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.

A cease-fire was announced and agreed to conditioned on Saddam's full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam obstructed and played shell games with the UN for 12 years, in spite of 14 UN resolutions that he fess up and allow unrestricted access by the UN.

During that time Saddam used everything at his command to put on a convincing show that he DID have WMDs (which he actually did: Sarin, VX and Mustard Gas) and was very successful in doing so, so much so that 40 nations agreed that the terms of the cease-fire had been violated and that renewing hostilities was appropriate and necessary.

And the Coalition did so.

Plenty of evidence, plenty of threat, plenty of justification for taking him out. 11 years and a bit more than enough.

You'll just carry on believing this, 'till your dying day.

You were lied to by your government. You are still being lied to.
Get used to it.

actually, he's right on the facts there.

Hussein did invade Kuwait and the UN responded in spades and drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And a cease fire accord was reached, and there were various conditions imposed on Iraq and a no fly zone. Iraq violated the cease fire accord repeatedly and fired on UN forces repeatedly. Iraq did not comply with the cease fire accord, the no fly zone and a dozen UN resolutions repeatedly telling him to comply. Ultimately, REsolution 1441 was passed by the UN, and force was initiated when Iraq did not comply.

I disagree with Seth that Bush the Elder's mistake was in not "finishing the job" during the Gulf War. We did the right thing, I think, in abiding by the UN mandate.

In 2003, there was a 40+ nation coalition. UN authorization for serious consequences to be imposed. Congressional Authorization for internal US purposes. And, lots of evidence that Hussein was up to shenanigans.

There is far less cause to invade or bomb Syria now than there was to attack Iraq in 2003. I'm not sure how it can be argued otherwise. Please try, if you can.

[rainbow]

There is far less cause to invade or bomb Syria now than there was to attack Iraq in 2003. I'm not sure how it can be argued otherwise. Please try, if you can.

Why would I want to argue that?

You have completely missed my point:

You were lied to by your government. You are still being lied to.

Only the size of the porkies varies.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is far less cause to invade or bomb Syria now than there was to attack Iraq in 2003. I'm not sure how it can be argued otherwise. Please try, if you can.

Why would I want to argue that?

You have completely missed my point:

You were lied to by your government. You are still being lied to.

Only the size of the porkies varies.

Oh, well, sure, there are lies. We're lied to now.

What was true, though, was that Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the UN overwhelmingly approved force against Hussein. The US did the lion's share of the fighting and pushed him back to baghdad, and a cease fire accord was entered and a no fly zone imposed. Iraq violated the accords and the no fly zone repeatedly. Iraq had chemical weapons, bio weapons, and a nuclear weapons program. Iraq concealed the status of those programs. Iraq violated a dozen UN resolutions over as many years, and refused to come into compliance. There was a humanitarian crisis in Iraq as big as in Syria, only extending for a much longer period of time.

[rainbow]

The BIG LIE was that there was an imminent threat, which there wasn't.

The humanitarian crisis never was the reason for the invasion until after it became obvious that no WMD would be found.

The fact that one has a few truths interspersed between a bunch of lies, don't make those lies the truth.

[Audley Strange]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed. why should it always be left up to the USA? It gets criticised for wanting to be the world's policeman, but the closest thing we have to one (the UN) plainly isn't up to the job.

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Yes. Also the "coalition of the willing" happened after terrorists flew planes into American buildings, No one really gives a fuck about Syrian internal politics. You can't compare the two. If Bush had started clamping down on Endtime militias which had escalated into a civil war, then gassed some people, no one would give a fuck. It's only when you kill foreigners that the international community cares.

By "foreigners", do you mean "anyone who is not American", or "anyone being killed by some country other than their own"?

The latter.

[Warren Dew]

Wrong. The US responded at the request of its ally Kuwait to Saddam's invasion and kicked Saddam's ass all the way back to Baghdad. Bush the Elder's mistake was in not finishing the job then.

Kuwait was not an ally at the time; in fact, the U.S. had previously had better relations with Iraq than with Kuwait. The Iraqi foreign minister even had a chat with a U.S. undersecretary of state, and thought he had tacit approval for the invasion from the U.S.

Hussein did invade Kuwait and the UN responded in spades and drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And a cease fire accord was reached, and there were various conditions imposed on Iraq and a no fly zone. Iraq violated the cease fire accord repeatedly and fired on UN forces repeatedly. Iraq did not comply with the cease fire accord, the no fly zone and a dozen UN resolutions repeatedly telling him to comply. Ultimately, REsolution 1441 was passed by the UN, and force was initiated when Iraq did not comply.

Don't forget the sanctions that prevented Iraqis from getting food and medicine, and killed more Iraqis than did the Iraq war.

I disagree with Seth that Bush the Elder's mistake was in not "finishing the job" during the Gulf War. We did the right thing, I think, in abiding by the UN mandate.

I disagree that we should have gone in at all. It wasn't any of our business, and no U.S. strategic interests were implicated. At the time, Iraq was no more oppressive than Kuwait, and served as a useful counterbalance to Iran, stabilizing the region.

Given we made the mistake of going in in 1990, though, it probably would have been better to finish the job the first time, instead of waiting until 2003 to finish the job.