shockdown
Cotechino
   
   
    
   
 
Since: 28.12.02
Since last post: 3353 days
Last activity: 3327 days
|  #1 Posted on 17.3.03 0528.57 | http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?vts=031620032110
Glazed over this as I'm checking email before leaving for work...Interesting commentary, with a both few flaws and a number of interestingly good points. I will reserve detailed commentary until I have a chance to sit and read it in full with rushing on the fly. Till then, I leave it to those on this board more skilled in the art of political debate than I....
Power flows to the one who knows how -- desire alone is not enough.
--- Megatron| Promote this thread! |           | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 750 days
Last activity: 547 days
| #2 Posted on 17.3.03 0600.23 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | Some pull-outs from the article:
But how to explain that the vast majority of the world, with little to gain from it, is in the Franco-Russian camp?
That's some creative math, considering that over 90 countires have singed on board to help us in one way or another.
Over the past year the United States became a campaign issue in elections in Germany, South Korea and Pakistan. Being anti-American was a vote-getter in all three places.
True in Pakistan, but Gerhard Schroeader in Germany held on by a razor thin margin, and only because of his coalitions with more leftists parties.
(edited by Grimis on 17.3.03 0700)
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915 | dMr
Andouille
Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 33 min.
|  #3 Posted on 17.3.03 0646.35 |
Originally posted by Grimis
Gerhard Schroeader in Germany held on by a razor thin margin, and only because of his coalitions with more leftists parties.
(edited by Grimis on 17.3.03 0700)
Schroeder was behind (if only marginally) in most polls until he adopted a more anti-war stance.
Course, the accuracy of polls is open to debate, and when it comes time to vote people often switch from the opposition back to the incumbent party besaucse of a 'better the devil you know' attitude.
Just providing the counter point.
But you're bang on on the other point. People seem to be under the illusion that only the UK and US support military action when the reality is far from that.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard | Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Since: 27.1.02
Since last post: 2025 days
Last activity: 128 days
| #4 Posted on 17.3.03 0930.53 | Is there some link to find out what these 90 countries are?
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown. | Jaguar
Knackwurst
Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ
Since last post: 595 days
Last activity: 595 days
| #5 Posted on 17.3.03 1239.58 | And I'm assuming that you're going to count the UK in those 90 countries, while as far as I know, Tony Blair is busy fracturing his own party over support for this war. It looks like to get the votes he needs, he's going to have to gain his support from outside his party.
-Jag
But that's just what I've heard. I'm sure our local Brits can correct me here?
If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:
Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Breakfast of Champions | shockdown
Cotechino
Since: 28.12.02
Since last post: 3353 days
Last activity: 3327 days
| #6 Posted on 17.3.03 1910.20 | Well, the whole "who supports whom" seems to be falling into place, and news reports on Yahoo seem to indicate that Austrailia is commiting troops to this war, and the Turkish government seems to be hedging (on the side of the US) about the whole issue of US troops in the country.
The only thing is, I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole idea of the US strongarming and backdealing all of its negotiations, as they author seems to imply. (Certainly though, if Rumsfeld was involved in any of it, I can see how he might rub any number of diplomats the wrong way). I'm certainly not saying that our government isn't guilty of or capable of such tactics, but it seems that with all of the "offended parties" there's only one side of the story being given (and in the example of the quotes about what Pakistan has gotten in return for their help in the al Queda hunt, there aren't actually any quotes from Pakistani officials in the article expressing specific displeasure).
It would be nice though, (if only a pipe dream) if what is going on now doesn't become a trend. The author does make a good point -- it's going to be pretty bloody and expensive if we have to keep fighting all these wars and chasing these terrorists, and rebuilding these countries for the next couple of decades, especially if the US has to do it by itself.
Power flows to the one who knows how -- desire alone is not enough.
--- Megatron | Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Since: 27.1.02
Since last post: 2025 days
Last activity: 128 days
| #7 Posted on 18.3.03 1447.46 |
Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
Is there some link to find out what these 90 countries are?
And the Secretary of State answers my question, kind of:
Thirty nations declared support, with undeclared backing from another 15. List of thirty is at the link.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/coalition18.html
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown. | calvinh0560
Boudin rouge
Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts
Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 8 hours
| #8 Posted on 18.3.03 1502.58 | Instant Rating: 0.00 |
Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
Is there some link to find out what these 90 countries are?
And the Secretary of State answers my question, kind of:
Thirty nations declared support, with undeclared backing from another 15. List of thirty is at the link.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/coalition18.html
You do know that during World War Two we only had about 48 or so country on our side so 30+15 is a large amount. | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 750 days
Last activity: 547 days
| #9 Posted on 18.3.03 1523.01 | Instant Rating: 7.29 |
Originally posted by calvinh0560
You do know that during World War Two we only had about 48 or so country on our side so 30+15 is a large amount.
In the interest of fairness....their weren't quite the number of countries then as there are now. That being said, I'm sure the number will go well beyond 45 and anytime you get 45 nations with such diverse interests behind something like this, you know that we're not alone.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915 | Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Since: 27.1.02
Since last post: 2025 days
Last activity: 128 days
| #10 Posted on 18.3.03 1730.42 | Oh, I'm not trying to minimize the 45 countries at all.
I'll admit, it's way more than I thought supported the upcoming war - is it a war? - police action, whatever.
It just seemed worthwhile to get a number w/ some backup on the board, so that we don't keep having the whole "unilateral action vs. vast support" debate. With this, it seems that the reality is somewhere between what each side was claiming.
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown. | dMp
Banger
Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)
Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
|  #11 Posted on 19.3.03 0148.25 | You know Turkey is only in it for its own gain right?
Just like many other smaller countries..
I know for a fact that the Dutch government says it supports a war (yet without any contributions, something we usually do right away) although many in parliament do not, and it might even stop a new government from being formed (we just had elections, they are discussing coalitions) since many parties do not agree.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Pages: 1