Blogcritics: Comments on Bush on TV: Condi was better

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:55:06 EDT

People have the right to use whatever language they wish. And you certainly have the right to be sick about it.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:13:56 EDT

Well, I guess WWII was a "unilateral" action of the anti-Axis countries, then? I mean, how many supporters of the NAZIs and Imperial Japanese were on the US-British side? Anyway, this is all semantics. It's pretty much moot. I'm just sick of hearing words used incorrectly to describe the War in Iraq. US-led is fine. Unneccesary is acceptable. Reckless is subjective. But unilateral just isn't true.

Comment by JR

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:57:03 EDT

What does "unilaterally" mean, then? Uni = One. Lateral = Side. One-sided invasion. And that's not true, unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day without my knowledge... They are different countries who are all on our "side". So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral." So what countries from Saddam Hussein's side of the conflict helped us invade Iraq?

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:50:42 EDT

Hal speaks truth and makes an excellent point.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:12:10 EDT

This nit-picking discussion is a great example of how technically-true statements can produce a lie. I would have thought that anyone who has raised a child (or been one) would know how that works, but apparently not. Calling the invasion of Iraq "unilateral" presents a truer picture of what actually transpired than does the technically-accurate word "coalition." "Coalition" masks the fact that the members of this group were not clamoring to invade Iraq for any reason, and that "unilateral" is a far better description of the reality on the ground. Australia was brokering a trade deal and wanted to get better terms for their agricultural products (they got screwed, by the way). Slovenia and at least nine other countries were trying to get into NATO. Israel might have joined anyhow, but used this opportunity to press their request for a $12 billion aid and loan package. I don't know what Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Singapore and the Solomon Islands wanted but it's not reasonable to think that any of them had any desire to waste lives and lucre invading Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was not a banding together of nations with a desire to remove Saddam. It was a coalition of the bought and the pressured. The enterprise was an American enterprise from start to finish (except there is no finish), a unilateral American operation, with other countries dragged in as window-dressing. Of the the six billion people on earth, only a relatively few have been duped. Not surprisingly, a huge portion of those are in America.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:04:27 EDT

Most of the world's peoiple are wrong -- about many things accepted, sadly, as conventional "wisdom." In any case, there was a Coalition of the Killing, so saying that the invasion and occupation are US-led would be the accurate statement.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:01:21 EDT

USA: 130,000 + in Iraq Britain: 12,000... um, that's TWELVE FUCKING THOUSAND TROOPS... We could fit that many in an American Humvee. I'm sick of hearing BRITAIN is a friggin' 'COALITION member'. And the nerve of that cocky punk Blair standing there giving President Deer-In-The-Headlights a blow-job on in the Rose Garden on national TV (at least Clinton did it behind closed doors). Here's an idea Prime Minister Thyroid-Gland-Problem: Send an additional 118,000 troops to IRAQ and then you can come before the American public and lecture us on what the fuck we're ALL doing over in that hell-hole.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:37:16 EDT

Most of the people of the world are wrong, according to Webster's.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:36:42 EDT

Most of the people of the world are wrong, accoring to Webster's.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:01:06 EDT

No, it was unilateral to most of the world, Rj.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:45:26 EDT

Well, now you've added the qualifier "for all practical purposes." So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral." But it was for all practical purposes "unilateral" to those who oppose the war. That's fine. Thank you.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:23:09 EDT

You're entitled to your opinion, RJ, but that seems rather naive. Rick Atkinson, who was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago has a different view. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat." He was on CNN's Lou Dobbs show Thursday and this is what he said:

DOBBS: Amongst the things that you've written in this book, in this climate, as you well know, one of the things you wrote of the 101st division, they were better than the cause they served. That is explosive in these times. What did you mean?

ATKINSON: Well, I think it's very important that we not confuse the warriors with the war. And this is a book fundamentally about the warriors and not their war. But it occurred to me, even before the war started -- and I certainly feel even more strongly about it now -- that the case had not been made sufficiently for an invasion of Iraq that was virtually unilateral without allies.

As a scholar of World War II, I come away from studying World War II, believing that nothing is more important than when you're waging a global campaign whether against the axis in the 1940s or global terrorism in the 21st Century than having a robust, righteous coalition. My feeling was we did not have that when the war started and certainly don't have it now. [Lou Dobbs 4/16/2004]

For all practical purposes, it was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and we're paying the price for it now. Continuing to buy into the neocons' pre-invasion window-dressing is not helpful - it's time to get real so we can deal with the consequences.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:17:24 EDT

I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed." How was the UK bribed? Or Israel? Or Australia? There are more countries contributing to the effort in Iraq than in almost any other military action in world history. Yes, the US has taken the lead. That's pretty much the way of the world post-WWII. But it was not "unilateral" by definition. US-led? Sure. Unilateral? Lie.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:13:03 EDT

"The Coalition of the Willing is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?" Well, maybe the international communists and anti-Americans of all stripes mock it. But I tend not to disregard to position of dozens of countries... Okay, I see now where you got me. Ambiguous and incomplete wording on my part. Mea Culpa. The above would be more properly stated as: "I tend not to disregard the contributions of dozens of countries [who are helping us out]..." Again, I was not clear before. Sorry. :-/

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:08:04 EDT

"RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries." I don't care what Red China, Russia, France, Zimbabwe, Syria, or Cuba think. (At least, what their governments think.) I *do* care about those nations who are friendly to the US, and are cooperating with us, offering their blood and treasure, in order to stabilize Iraq. Yes, it's all very subjective. Anti-war types will likely highly value the opinions of France and Germany while mocking the contributions of El Salvador and Estonia. Whatcha gonna do?

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:01:06 EDT

By the way, why do 'murricans (or as I tend to think of them, the coalition of the dim) describe the People's Republic of China as "Red China"? Was there some sort of trauma at a Pottery Barn? You know, no matter how much you wish for it, you aren't getting Richard Nixon back. China has provided the States with the model to deal with both dissent at home, and international diplomacy. Shrub came close to quoting Chairman Mao, but of course, fucked up the quote. If you're going to have a monopoly on power, at least get somebody entertaining dammit! Could Shrub inspire college students to go on a rampage? Hell No! Your Glorious Leader is neither glorious or a leader, discuss.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:39:30 EDT

Hey, in all this listing of countries supporting the US aggression you forgot to list the good citizens of Mercenaria. There are as many mercenaries in Iraq as there are troops from the coalition of Will and Grace. Of course, after South Africa went all kablooie what with the democracy and all, the subscribers to Soldier of Fortune had to go somewhere for work.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:55:16 EDT

HP: "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed." Here are a couple of links that expand on that: U.S. builds war coalition with favors — and money What allies are offering and getting in return Those were in USA Today, but there was a lot more along the same lines at the time, with more detail, from a variety of sources.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:37:15 EDT

RJ: "Bush is (slightly) up right now." He's down in regard to Iraq according to the Newsweek poll of April 8-9: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 51% DISAPPROVE --- 44% APPROVE. In May of last year, only 26% disapproved and 69% approved - it's a big drop. Details at "So what do you think about ..." on BC.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:25:52 EDT

RJ: It was not a "unilateral" invasion... I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed." The average troop strength of the other "coalition" members is about 450. Of the 180,000 troops there, 125,000 in Iraq and 35,000 in Kuwait are American (89%). I appreciate the fact that anyone in Iraq from, say, Colombia or El Salvador is in as much danger, and would fight as well, as any of the other troops but none of the countries (including England and Australia) were banging on Wolfowitz's door shouting "C'mon, get up, we want to invade Iraq! Move it, move it!" Looking at it pragmatically rather than than through the White House PR blinkers, the needless invasion of Iraq was unilateral. Certainly more than "close enough for government work." RJ: I demand .... I'm sure you can imagine my response to that.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:24:49 EDT

Hal, you have a link at Mac-a-ro-nies. Thanks.

Comment by JR

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:52:48 EDT

'I value the opinion of other countries as long as that opinion matches mine'. Gee, that sounds kind of... how shall I put it? "One-sided"

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:36:50 EDT

RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries. Would you elaborate, because right now you are taking the exact same position as Bush, which is 'I value the opinion of other countries as long as that opinion matches mine'. This is the mentality that has caused so much problems overseas for the United States. So can you please elaborate? Is that your position?

Comment by anon

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:47:49 EDT

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. First article in the list with a google search. Not sure how up to date it is. Of course Spain plans to pull out.

Comment by anon

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:43:05 EDT

"Do you really appreciated the input of Russia and France and Red China? I don't. How about General Assembly members like Cuba, Syria, and Zimbabwe? The UN is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?" RJ's Bullshit for 200, please. "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." What is hypocrisy, Alex.