Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This administration thumbed its nose at the UN, and by extension, other nations in the process.> If anything, it was the UN that thumbed its nose at the administration.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>okay, who else sent troops to rescue Kuwait from being taken over ? That does not fall under your pre-emptive banner ?<< First, it isn't "my" pre-emptive banner. I didn't invent the term. It's part of this administration's policy that pre-emptive war can be justified. There were at least a dozen countries lending support in Kuwait.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If anything, it was the UN that thumbed its nose at the administration.<< On in your through-the-looking-glass view, which is required to support this administration as vehemently as you do in all things.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <On in your through-the-looking-glass view, which is required to support this administration as vehemently as you do in all things.> I support the administration against the lies and unsupportable claims of some on the left, but I don't do it vehemently. Some criticism is right on the mark.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<okay, who else sent troops to rescue Kuwait from being taken over ? That does not fall under your pre-emptive banner ?>> Lots of countries. 33 besides the U.S. to be exact. <<The United States, especially Secretary of State James Baker, assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.>> Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G ulf_War</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There were at least a dozen countries lending support in Kuwait.< Okay -- a whole dozen -- and which of those not supporting Iraq ? So where is this HUGE falloff of support of our Allies ? The argument holds no water at all. here is the coalition for the Kuwait engagement ( NON PRE EMPTIVE ) - 34 countries: assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself The IRAQ was has 28 countries: so we lose Afghanistan for obvious reasons - down to 33 -- IRAQ WAR: Shortly before the Iraq war began, the US government announced that 49 countries were joined in a "coalition of the willing" in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, with some number of other countries expressing their support in private. The 49 countries named by the White House were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uzbekistan. Of these, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support. Desert Storm Troop deployment United States: 575,000 troops Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the Liberation of Kuwait & Battle of Khafji) Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle) United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby Egypt: 35,000 troops Syria: 16,000 troops France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet Kuwait: 7,000 troops Pakistan: 5,500 troops Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION Spain: 3,000 troops United Arab Emirates: 2,000 troops Morocco: 2,000 troops Bangladesh: 2,000 troops Qatar: (about 1000 troops took part in the Battle of Khafji beside Saudi Army)[3] Oman: 950 troops Italy: 800 troops, 8 Panavia Tornado attack aircraft Niger: 500 troops Bahrain: 200 troops Senegal: 200 troops. Czechoslovakia: 200 troops Netherlands: 200 troops Honduras: 150 troops Argentina: Destroyer "Almirante Brown" and a Corvette "Spiro", later Corvette "Rosales" and "Trasport BahÃa San Blas". Vessels Identified: 761, Vessels Checked: 273, Escorted: 17. Mission: supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders Denmark: A corvette to supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders Norway: The Nordkapp class OPV KV Andenes to supervise waters near Kuwait, mostly smugglers and traders Poland: Elite Polish unit GROM participated in Operation Simoom Australia: 1800 troops Army, Navy and RAAF, Army and RAAF also particpated in Operation Habitat
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Again - I am not saying it is right , wrong or indifferent that we are there ( another thread ) - but the portrayal that we have lost all these valued allies is media nonsense
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So where is this HUGE falloff of support of our Allies ? The argument holds no water at all.<< You're talking about governments supporting other governments. I believe Mr. X's initial comment was about the general attitude of average folks in these countries -- man on the street stuff. You can believe the anger towards us is all made up by the media if you like. I don't. And you can say that it doesn't matter, but I think it does.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Doug, do you really think that world sentiment, right now, is "pro-America"?>> I think that last time it was pro America was on V Day.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I lived in Mexico during the Carter administration. Mexicans back then perceived the US as weak and ineffective. When Carter met with the Mexican president, he was treated rudely (I remember this being gleefully reported on Mexican TV). So, no, they didn't love us back then either.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You're talking about governments supporting other governments. I believe Mr. X's initial comment was about the general attitude of average folks in these countries -- man on the street stuff. You can believe the anger towards us is all made up by the media if you like. I don't. And you can say that it doesn't matter, but I think it does.< I believe it does matter - never said it didn't -- what I am saying is that the government opinions are little if at all changed from our Allies in reality -- and the man in the street -- they no more wanted to fight with us in the Gulf War than in Iraq now -- I also don't think that has changed.... yes, there are more people in the streets of Afghanistan that hate us -- as well as Iran -- but you really believe that is because of Bush ? The WTC attack was going to happen regardless of who was in the White House - and the aftermath is an uptick in US hatred in that rea of the world... As far as the man in the street in Germany or France for instance....they weren't going around praising the US before or after either conflict....so I fail to see where this 'change' has come from...I see it a lot more as a status quo. I am not denying there isn't a lot of love for us right now...but that has been that way for quite a while...remember there were large movements in the US before WWII to become isolationist and not fight someone else's war also....rarely is there complete 'allied' support. Of course if there is a major terror attack in France ( very likely one day) - or Germany or wherever they will expect us to be there in a heartbeat. A tsunami occurs and although we contribute more in aid than all others combined - we are criticized for being too slow -- it comes with the territory of being the only superpower left -- one day that will change as China becomes a major superpower - then more people will hate them also...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<Doug, do you really think that world sentiment, right now, is "pro-America"?>> I think that last time it was pro America was on V Day.< even then, as we were spending our money rebuilding countries - they couldn't get us out of there fast enough either... this sentiment that somehow other countries loved us in previous administrations I just don't get -- simply not true. If G W can be a lightning rod for most of the hatred so be it...some he has brought about himself through comments, the rest was always there anyway - just now it can be laser focused. When our embassey's were being blown up, did people feel badly because they liked Clinton ? I think not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>yes, there are more people in the streets of Afghanistan that hate us -- as well as Iran<< That isn't who we were focusing on in this discussion. Mr. X shared his experience with people in Japan -- he's there, we're not -- and he notices a shift in attitude. With domestic approval ratings in the toilet, it's no surprise the president wouldn't be much approved of by citizens in other parts of the world. I think it's just too easy to wave off these concerns with "Oh, they always hate Americans anyway." >>A tsunami occurs and although we contribute more in aid than all others combined - we are criticized for being too slow -- it comes with the territory of being the only superpower left<< I agree with you there. And also a part of what comes with being a superpower is using that power wisely. I don't think this administration has always done so.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "this sentiment that somehow other countries loved us in previous administrations I just don't get -- simply not true. If G W can be a lightning rod for most of the hatred so be it...some he has brought about himself through comments, the rest was always there anyway - just now it can be laser focused." I think what people are trying to say here is Bush II took it to a new level with the Iraq invasion. We've never done that before, no matter the justification. There's always been the "Yankee Go Home" mentality (see Hugo Chavez for the latest manifestation) but Iraq broke some barriers heretofore considered impenetrable. Going into Afghanistan didn't do it- everyone knew it was Al Qaeda behind 9/11 and their base was there. That was fair game. But Saddam? Breaking it down to its basics, sticks and stones made us do it, because we never did find what we were looking for there. Being the last superpower, every other country is conceivable vulnerable now to our "bad moods". THAT'S what has made for the new level of hatred.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I think it's just too easy to wave off these concerns with "Oh, they always hate Americans anyway." < except that there is an extreme amount of truth inthat. I have traveled internationally for the past 15 years for business -- lately spending a lot of time in South America. I do not see this 'shift' there, that I can tell you. The thoughts for America are much the same as they were 10 years ago...and I have also visited France / Germany / Austria & Italy in that period of time and again see nor hear any real discernable change -- yes they liked Clinton more than Bush - but overall love for us - unchanged IMHO. So I do not comment on this with no referential background and just wave it off as you say.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Breaking it down to its basics, sticks and stones made us do it, because we never did find what we were looking for there. Being the last superpower, every other country is conceivable vulnerable now to our "bad moods". THAT'S what has made for the new level of hatred.< See SPP, I believe Bush II allowed for more of a single focus point for the attitude that as you say always has been there. As to countries feeling more threatened -- maybe some truth to that, although that never stopped any of the more powerful countries from doing things like USSR invading Czechoslovakia / UK invading Falklands / and how many countries in Africa have had regime changes orchestrated by major powers over the past 25 years....maybe sheds new light on that potential, but reality says nothing has changed. How much world outrage before WWII with Japan's attrocities in China ? Why did the world turn a blind eye to the 3rd Reich's growth ? Because all this talk of allies is usually just that - talk only...it looks good in print.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As to countries feeling more threatened -- maybe some truth to that, although that never stopped any of the more powerful countries from doing things like USSR invading Czechoslovakia / UK invading Falklands..." Yeah, but the key here I believe is that the U.S. of A. has never done that, and that is what has set us apart from all the other guys. Now we're just like everyone else, and for a long time coming other countries will see if the other shoe drops.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As to countries feeling more threatened -- maybe some truth to that, although that never stopped any of the more powerful countries from doing things like USSR invading Czechoslovakia / UK invading Falklands..." Yeah, but the key here I believe is that the U.S. of A. has never done that, and that is what has set us apart from all the other guys. Now we're just like everyone else, and for a long time coming other countries will see if the other shoe drops.
