Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Coney]

.

[GrayMouser]

Broad coalition?

US, Britain, Australia and a jar of Spanish olives. (no troops)

Actually, if I am correct the majority of the UN supports America.

You are not correct.

And even if some of the governments do, as far as the people of the world goes, there is only one country where the population supports the attack on Iraq without a Security Council vote. ( And it's not America. CNN poll 50% against 47% for)

I'm in favour of a war to get rid of Saddam, but the arrogance, clumsiness and outright contempt for everyone else in the world shown by this Administration leaves me with a fairly bleak view of the near future.

Given the mess left behind in Afghanistan, the compulsion to silence any questioning voices (including the head of the US Army) and their eagerness to start handing out the spoils to their campaign contributors, I can't be optimistic about the way they'll handle the aftermath.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Broad coalition?

US, Britain, Australia and a jar of Spanish olives. (no troops)

A coalition doesn' t have to only provide military support. They can supply bases and give us overflight capabilities too. Also - the MAJORITY of Europe actually supports the US stand. Remember? Chirac told them to "just shutup" because they were stating their support for us.

You are not correct.

And even if some of the governments do, as far as the people of the world goes, there is only one country where the population supports the attack on Iraq without a Security Council vote. ( And it's not America. CNN poll 50% against 47% for)

That poll was before France said they were going to veto the resolution no matter what. Things change based on the circumstances.

I'm in favour of a war to get rid of Saddam, but the arrogance, clumsiness and outright contempt for everyone else in the world shown by this Administration leaves me with a fairly bleak view of the near future.

Well it took that arogance for the UN weapon inspectors even to go into Iraq. At first the UN wasn't going to do anything. Then the UN finally decided, after we told them that if they weren't going to take it up - that we would - to discuss it. Then Hussein said under no circumstances would he allow weapons inspectors in - so we massed more troops in the area. Then he agreed.

Again - we did NOT have to go to the UN at all. It was not a requirement.

Given the mess left behind in Afghanistan, the compulsion to silence any questioning voices (including the head of the US Army) and their eagerness to start handing out the spoils to their campaign contributors, I can't be optimistic about the way they'll handle the aftermath.

Mess??? First of all that war has only been "finished" with for a little over a year. You think it's easy to bring to life a country which has had NOTHING but war for 23 years???? Lived under a fanatical religious tribe - which had executions in their soccer stadium? How did we leave Afganistan a mess - especially since WE ARE STILL there. You really should get your facts right on that one. I guess you feel that the US can just snap it's fingers or wiggle it's nose and everything will be fixed in Afganistan.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I think there is a chance of him leaving Iraq - I mean he seems like a coward. If I were in his place, I would leave asap - thousands of american troops ready to take your country in a matter of days.

Unfortunately I don't think he will go into exile as it violates a rather fundemental islamic belief: to defend your religion at all costs when under attack. But you could be right: he strikes me as cowardly.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Broad coalition?

US, Britain, Australia and a jar of Spanish olives. (no troops)




You are not correct.

And even if some of the governments do, as far as the people of the world goes, there is only one country where the population supports the attack on Iraq without a Security Council vote. ( And it's not America. CNN poll 50% against 47% for)

I'm in favour of a war to get rid of Saddam, but the arrogance, clumsiness and outright contempt for everyone else in the world shown by this Administration leaves me with a fairly bleak view of the near future.

Given the mess left behind in Afghanistan, the compulsion to silence any questioning voices (including the head of the US Army) and their eagerness to start handing out the spoils to their campaign contributors, I can't be optimistic about the way they'll handle the aftermath.

You are certainly Ill-informed my friend. Mess in Afghanistan? huh? How can you say that? The country has publicly stated it is better now than it was 6 months ago, the people are free and they are rebuilding with our help, how is that a mess?

I suggest you read up on the UN as well, JD was correct in stating that the majority of the UN was with us, there was just no vote to prove it...

By the way, nice propaganda with your poll stats. I love how you eloquently left out that that is from a poll asking "The U.S. decides NOT to offer the resolution to the United Nations and says it will proceed with military action without any new vote in the U.N." Nice job at providing the whole story, I think that right there lessens your post. However on the converse side you have these two polls to match it:

These are from http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030317.asp

Now, here are some things that could happen with this resolution. For each, say if you would favor or opposing invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops if it happened. How about if – [RANDOM ORDER]?

A. The U.S. offers the resolution to the United Nations and the U.N. approves it?

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 78%
Oppose 19%
No Opinion 3$


B. The U.S. offers the resolution to the United Nations and the U.N. rejects it

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 54%
Oppose 43%
No Opinion 3%

C. The U.S. decides NOT to offer the resolution to the United Nations and says it will proceed with military action without any new vote in the U.N.

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 47%
Oppose 50%
No Opinion 3%

Those were taken before Bush's speech tonight, so naturally that data will change.

As of tonight, here are new figures in polls run:

-Overall, 66% of Americans approve of Bush's decision to go to war unless Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, while 30% disapprove.

-By a similar margin, 68% to 28%, Americans also say that the United States has done all it can do to solve the crisis with Iraq diplomatically.

-The poll suggests that 44% of Americans have been convinced by the president's arguments, and thus support his decision. Another 21% of Americans are unsure if war is the right thing, but support Bush anyway because he is the president. Thirty percent take an opposing point of view.

-The poll also shows that most people, 70%, are "worried" about the possibility of going to war in the next few days. A bare majority feels "confident," while just under a majority feels "afraid." Only 31% feel "relieved."

Here is the link to the newest polls that I just posted above:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030318.asp

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Now, here are some things that could happen with this resolution. For each, say if you would favor or opposing invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops if it happened. How about if – [RANDOM ORDER]?

A. The U.S. offers the resolution to the United Nations and the U.N. approves it?

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 78%
Oppose 19%
No Opinion 3$


B. The U.S. offers the resolution to the United Nations and the U.N. rejects it

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 54%
Oppose 43%
No Opinion 3%

C. The U.S. decides NOT to offer the resolution to the United Nations and says it will proceed with military action without any new vote in the U.N.

2003 Mar 14-15
Favor 47%
Oppose 50%
No Opinion 3%

Those were taken before Bush's speech tonight, so naturally that data will change.

Yes and the thing is we were going to submit the resolution - but even before it was presented France already said they were vetoing it. So why bother?

To me - France was the one being completely unreasonable. All they wanted to do was drag on the diplomatic wraggling until they got their way. Maybe they thought we'd actually blink - I'm not sure. Maybe Chirac likes the limelight. All I know is that there would have been NO end in sight to make Hussein come clean.

Bush didn't need the resolution because 65% of AMERICANS already support him.

[Lief Erikson]

I just wish that that full and unedited/abridged speech could get through to the Iraqi people and soldiers. I doubt that it will though, and that disappoints me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I just wish that that full and unedited/abridged speech could get through to the Iraqi people and soldiers. I doubt that it will though, and that disappoints me.

I'm sure it was broadcast over Voice of America - so they could listen to it over the radio.

[Lief Erikson]

Perhaps the news on Channel 7 tonight was just professing doom, but they said there that it's likely that Saddam will put a whole new interpretation on it and parts of it will be edited out when it's played.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Unfortunately I don't think he will go into exile as it violates a rather fundemental islamic belief: to defend your religion at all costs when under attack. But you could be right: he strikes me as cowardly.

He already has said that he'll fight and die in Iraq.

Historically he has always been after power, in his country and in others, so it would be rather out of character to give up the power he has.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gray MouserAnd even if some of the governments do, as far as the people of the world goes, there is only one country where the population supports the attack on Iraq without a Security Council vote. ( And it's not America. CNN poll 50% against 47% for)

Those polls are just for viewers of CNN. They always say at the bottom of them that it isn't a government survey or anything, but is a limited group.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Those polls are just for viewers of CNN. They always say at the bottom of them that it isn't a government survey or anything, but is a limited group.

no - the polls that Gray Mouser is quoting are scientific polls. The one's on CNN you're thinking of are like the Wold Blitzer one's where people just vote online. You can look at Gallup Organisation. They're one of the largest polling companies in the country and the one that CNN uses for their scientific polls. The website - in addition to listing a ton of polls - also explains how polls are conducted.

[Artanis]

It is really sad that the UN didn't manage to reach an agreement. The resolution should have been voted for. I don't see why the USA were pulling out. If France had really vetoed it, they would have been left with the blame, but now the USA also must bear the responsibility.

The UN has failed.

[Baby-K]

I'm so sad about this war Such a waste..............so many innocent people who will be killed Hopefully it will be over very fast & the losses will be minimal.

Strikes me as strange that a few of the "good Christians" here (and across the world) would support such a thing............yet another reason for me to rather not call myself one

[Draken]

I don't think Hussein will leave because I think he honestly believes he will win. He believes he won the Iran-Iraq war and he believes he sort of won in 1991. He seems to be surrounded by yes men who reinforce his beliefs of invincibility and popular support (if they value their lives they do at least!).

Thankfully Iraqi military strategy seems stuck at about WW1, relying on earth works with tanks often dug into defensive positions and used as mobile bunkers. Perhaps this isn't such a bad idea as moving armour in the face of Allied control of the air would be near-suicidal. The Iraqis will probably try and halt an invasion with largely static defences ill-equipped to deal with special forces and highly mobile armoured divisions.

Hopefully the Iraqi army will collapse soon after the first attacks and there won't be many casualties. My real worry is that they'll see themselves as fighting for their homeland and not the nutter in charge of it. The nightmare scenario would be desperately partisan Iraqi forces falling back into the hills and towns, avoiding set-piece battles and fighting house by house, valley by valley. That would cause a lot of casualties. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

[markedel]

I think the Purim timing is ironic by the way because Purim is about God's constant subtle manipulation of history. I certainly don't think this war is "divinely inspired" (well I suppose in some sense it is, provided you believe in God), but I'm sure there are Rabbis here and there who would say this is a just reward for someone who is a modern Haman in every sense.

[Sween]

So it has come to war ! Cannot say im happy or i agree with it. But to all nations service men and women (evens Iraqs) i hope that it ends with as little killing as possiable. A special mention to my good friends Burty, John, Kevin, little jepson and jennys Bf who have all been called up to fight in the war i be thinking of you all!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Draken
I don't think Hussein will leave because I think he honestly believes he will win.

I dont see how he could possibly be this stupid. Hes got to know sooner or later its over for him. He will not win. And this is what scares me because I think this makes it more likely he will do what he can to royally screw things up before hes finally taken down whether its gassing his own people. Launching who knows what on Israel. Dressing up as American/British troops and spraying his own citizens with bullets. Burning his own oil fields. poisoning his own water. Who knows.

Unfortunately I don't think he will go into exile as it violates a rather fundemental islamic belief: to defend your religion at all costs when under attack. But you could be right: he strikes me as cowardly.

I dont think he gives a hoot at all about religion its all for show. All he cares about is bettering himself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
He already has said that he'll fight and die in Iraq.

Historically he has always been after power, in his country and in others, so it would be rather out of character to give up the power he has.

I agree with Lief. Saddam is a power-hungry maniac. I doubt he'll give up his power willingly, even to save his own skin.

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dúnedain
[B]You are certainly Ill-informed my friend. Mess in Afghanistan? huh? How can you say that? The country has publicly stated it is better now than it was 6 months ago, the people are free and they are rebuilding with our help, how is that a mess? [quote]

If by "the countryhas publicly stated", you are referring to the visit of President Karzai to Washington at the beginning of this month, it must be pointed out that he was in something of a delicate position. The Bush Administration had made it perfectly clear it didn't want to hear any bad news that might cast a shadow on its plans for war in Iraq, and Karzai himself had to walk a fine line between boosting signs of progress while pointing out how much still needed to be done, in hopes that the aid that was promised was actually delivered- in the draft budget sent to Congress by Bush there was exactly $0 in aid for rebuilding Afghanistan- not one thin dime; the Administration spokesman's excuse was that they weren't sure it was really needed.

Karzai is essentially Mayor of Kabul, the provinces are in the hands of the warlords, many of them Islamic fundamentalists who are busy turning back to the days of the Taliban: enforcing the burqa, closing schools for girls, executing and torturing at will etc..

A conference that was held last year in Tokyo to raise funds for Afghanistan produced commitments of some $4.5 billion. In practice, less than one-third of that amount was made available. Against the background of the threatened war against Iraq, Afghanistan is unlikely to receive the missing funds or get new aid. In the absence of a budget, the government will not be able to compete with the tribal chieftains, local bosses and warlords who are imposing their rule on the majority of Afghanistan's provinces without regard for the government.

A soldier in the new Afghan army, which was trained by the Americans and the Germans, gets a monthly wage of $50. A fighter in the ranks of the private militia of the Kandahar governor, Khan Mohammed, earns $120 a month. And this is not the only competition the government finds itself involved in. The Central Intelligence Agency pays far larger amounts to militiamen who take part in the unceasing pursuits of Al-Qaida men.

It turns out that not even the Americans can always buy assistance with money. In the northern city of Konduz, where local militias are operating alongside the Americans under the command of a local leader, Daoud Khan, it emerged that the militiamen, who received salaries from the Americans, concealed wanted Taliban men.

The direct control of the government, which consists of 32 ministries in order to placate all the factions, is confined only to the boundaries of Kabul. Attempts by Karzai to oblige the provincial governors to transfer to the central government the revenues they collect from taxes encounter total refusal.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

On the bright side, the opium economy is booming; Afghanistan is now back to being the number one heroin producer in the world; unfortunately the money from that goes straight into the pockets of the local warlords.

The one thing that Karzai and those trying to re-establish civil government have been pleading for from day one has been the expansion of the International Security Force and that has been the one thing the U.S. has firmly opposed; the Pentagon prefers to work with the warlords without worrying about international observers or interference.

I call that a mess.