US Credibility

[NewsMan]

Every time the US shows the world "evidence" against Iran, it is chided by not only world leaders, but people right here on MPNet. This underscores the depth of the problems created by this administration. I wondered aloud some years ago what the Bush administration would do to US credibility. Now the question is: How long before it's back? Also, does the US have the ability to take her lumps humbly? Or will she continue to lose friends until the world is staked against her as one? How could the US go from the darling country in the days after 9/11 to the world enemy (perceived) in just a few years? (IMO, the tide began to turn in 2004 during 1st Fallujah). Can the US stand to be apologetic? Should the US be apologetic?

[ltrowley]

I guess it depends (in a very small nutshell) if the U.S's accusations and predictions become true or not. Due to the events of the past 6 years there is now a large amount of international skepticism regarding U.S statements. If events unfold to be true to the U.S's thinking then I imagine a large swing back towards American support. The U.S is in a crucial time here, important decisions have to be made properly. The current admin's performance is certainly lacklustre, strong and correct leadership is needed in the very near future.


edit: But in no way should they be apologetic, this would further undermine their standing.

[muck]

Bush is the important problem. Not necessarily his policy as a conservative, but he as a person. As a president, he is abroad of course most likely perceived as the personalized American, so it is more his credibility that has suffered during the last years.
To name a concrete example: The Anti-Bush demonstrations in Italy during the past weekend. In former times, for sure there were protests directed against the US politics, too, but not at this personal level by which a whole nation was reduced to the negative image of one man.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The image of the US will improve a bit after Bush is gone.

Apologizing is a waste of time. Who do you apologize to and what about?

Better to do something good and hope that helps to repair things.

[Bert]

A one-step way to restore U.S. credibility

#1 Elect Ron Paul.

[seraosha]

Wringing our hands at the idea that "the world doesn't like us".
Mob opinions swing like pendulums, eventually they'll find a new hobby.

Better to learn from past mistakes, and soldier on.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

A one-step way to restore U.S. credibility

#1 Elect Ron Paul.

It doesn't matter who they elect. Anyone will be an improvement

[ltrowley]

Don't forget 9/11 was a severe paradigm shift. Judgment is best reserved.

[dangerclose]

How could the US go from the darling country in the days after 9/11 to the world enemy (perceived) in just a few years?


Don't kid yourself. The "Today we are all American" platitudes were just that. The U.S. is more appealing to the world when we're on our knees.


If only we could get hit again and have thousands killed in order to regain our darling status.

[ltrowley]

If only we could get hit again and have thousands killed in order to regain our darling status.

Agreed, the stabilising effect the U.S has on world politics is often underestimated.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Don't kid yourself. The "Today we are all American" platitudes were just that. The U.S. is more appealing to the world when we're on our knees.


If only we could get hit again and have thousands killed in order to regain our darling status.


So all the countries that helped out in Afghanistan post 911 (even including Russia and former Soviet Central Asian Republics) were just pretending to help?

Nobody had to help you out but they did it anyway. It's your leader's fault that you've subsequently blown it big time.

[rjc_rbnj]

How to restore US credibility - VOTE FOR BARAK OBAMA!!!!!!!!

[muck]

So all the countries that helped out in Afghanistan post 911 (even including Russia and former Soviet Central Asian Republics) were just pretending to help?

Nobody had to help you out but they did it anyway. It's your leader's fault that you've subsequently blown it big time.

Casus foederis, I'd say. We had no choice, we wanted to help anyway though, and we still do it.


Don't kid yourself. The "Today we are all American" platitudes were just that. The U.S. is more appealing to the world when we're on our knees.

You really think so? Let's exclude the Middle East from our consideration. When Clinton was president, the States were very popular. Regardless what one thinks about his politics (I mention this especially since we Not-Americans can only judge about your Nation's foreign policy), he was a very diplomatic statesman. After he had been replaced by Bush, nearly a year long nothing happened in the world. The dismay and solidarity after 9/11 was real. Only then, Bush screwed his affairs when he started the Iraq war. Even when he got support by the government of a country, it did not necessarily mean that the majority of the people supported their government's decision to join the war, too. Undoubtedly, he is not that subtle as his predecessor and rather shirtly than a skilful statesman, at least it seems so. So the people around the globe assess him as a loudmouthed cowboy. I think, the respect of the USA will increase again when he will be replaced, never mind by whom.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.

"Credibility" is a function of whether other nations think there is any value (or any point) in backing you up.

Haven't you figured that out yet?:roll:

As for "groupthink" it was your own government's groupthink that got you into the hole you're currently in. The Bush administration's behaviour in the build up to the war in Iraq could have come straight from a textbook on organizational psychology.

[Hollis]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.


Could not have said it better.

If only the world was so simple.

[muck]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.

I think, a_very_ex_STAB is right here. Talking about any feelings of superiority here is just misplaced and suggests a bad intention where there isn't any.
We don't talk here about something abstractly, but about quite simple credibility, a question influenced by certain factors whether one believes someone else or not. And the USA have lost this credibility due to the image and the behaviour of their loudmouthed and apparently underexposed and combative presidents and his lies. And before I receive attacks for this statement - he has already admitted that he withheld from his people the truth concerning the true reasons for starting the Iraq war.

[Bert]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.

'Credibility' is a function of how many great values the U.S. talks about and propagates to the world (either by preaching or pointing guns everywhere), compared to the number of these values which are actually followed by that same country, our beacon of democracy in the world which is currently being demolished piece by piece by authoritarian idiots on both the left and right.

The credibility is currently low, seeing as the Clown-in-Chief is preaching on and on about human rights and freedoms, while denying freedoms to the American people through restricting free trade, allowing the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of their earned money, snooking and peeking into their lives via the PATRIOT Act, and putting the status of the rule of law on moratorium for select prisoners which may or may not be terrorists and placing them in Gitmo instead of actually giving them a fair trial.

[Hollis]

'Credibility' is a function of how many great values the U.S. talks about and propagates to the world (either by preaching or pointing guns everywhere), compared to the number of these values which are actually followed by that same country, our beacon of democracy in the world which is currently being demolished piece by piece by authoritarian idiots on both the left and right.

The credibility is currently low, seeing as the Clown-in-Chief is preaching on and on about human rights and freedoms, while denying freedoms to the American people through restricting free trade, allowing the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of their earned money, snooking and peeking into their lives via the PATRIOT Act, and putting the status of the rule of law on moratorium for select prisoners which may or may not be terrorists and placing them in Gitmo instead of actually giving them a fair trial.


Bert, you are so far off base and just pandering some self serving political view. This is what most of this is, Politics at it's nastiest form. The sad thing is, too many people believe their own propaganda. That is very delusional. Even your post reaks of political opportunism and bias. Kind of like reading, The Workers Daily World or Pravada (during the CCCP days).

[Laworkerbee]

The credibility is currently low, seeing as the Clown-in-Chief is preaching on and on about human rights and freedoms, while denying freedoms to the American people through restricting free trade, allowing the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of their earned money, snooking and peeking into their lives via the PATRIOT Act, and putting the status of the rule of law on moratorium for select prisoners which may or may not be terrorists and placing them in Gitmo instead of actually giving them a fair trial.

You were doing ok until you totally lost your mind

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You were doing ok until you totally lost your mind

Try posting in a different language and see how well you do :roll:

[Jobu]

How could the US go from the darling country in the days after 9/11 to the world enemy (perceived) in just a few years? (IMO, the tide began to turn in 2004 during 1st Fallujah). Can the US stand to be apologetic? Should the US be apologetic?

No apologies.

As for how we went from the "darling" to the enemy it's very simple:

They loved us when we were hurt and bleeding but as soon as we stood up and showed that we'd do what we believe is best for us they went back to the status quo of hating.

So there you go, if you want the world's sympathies, just be a constant victim. Allow yourself to be attacked, your people killed, your economy damaged, and you will be the darling of the world.

No thanks. That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

[Freibier]

I'd rate the US Credibility close to Zero and nothing will change that until you get a new prezident, imho

[Laworkerbee]

Try posting in a different language and see how well you do :roll:

STAB for a second language his writing is great, it's the content.

while denying freedoms to the American people through restricting free trade I mean please give me a break already.

allowing the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of their earned money O'rly?

Thats dribble no matter how it's sliced.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think, a_very_ex_STAB is right here. Talking about any feelings of superiority here is just misplaced and suggests a bad intention where there isn't any.
We don't talk here about something abstractly, but about quite simple credibility, a question influenced by certain factors whether one believes someone else or not. And the USA have lost this credibility due to the image and the behaviour of their loudmouthed and apparently underexposed and combative presidents and his lies. And before I receive attacks for this statement - he has already admitted that he withheld from his people the truth concerning the true reasons for starting the Iraq war.

Fair enough - if you'd be so kind as to post Bush's statement in which he admits lying in order to start the war, we can talk about it. The entire purpose of going into Iraq was to find out it's WMD status (which BTW the UN is has still not concluded) so yes there was a risk of not finding what we thought might be there.

Or heck, go ahead and post anything that Bush has lied about. Not wrong about - people get to be wrong - but lied about. Apart from minor distortions which are obviously necessary in any war, I doubt there's much to be found (and if you insist on including these minor distortions, we can get into the long list of nations who have conducted wars while maintaining 100% truthiness.)

One is supposed to be combative, when the situation calls for it. If you don't like his personal style of speaking very directly, and then >gasp< doing exactly as he says he will do, well that's not his fault. I happen to disagree violently with his stance on immigration - and it irks me to hear him say that he vows to get an immigration bill - but to me that only reinforces his credibility. I don't like it, but I won't resort to pretending that he has no credibility. The guy has connected the dots from A to B to C, has done each and every thing he has said he would do - based upon criteria that he laid out precisely.

As far as I'm concerned, the US was, and still is, perfectly within it's rights in concluding Gulf War 1, since the agency given the mandate for the job proved to be worse than incompetent.

All Europe had to do in order to avoid all this unpleasantness was to give the UN some credibility. All they had to do was to back up the promise they made to us when they were entrusted with the inspections process - which a credible program would have concluded in 6 months, not left unfinished after 12 years. And let's not bring up the French bait-and-switch. The US has done exactly as it said it would do, every step of the way, which I grant you - some folks may not like, but it doesn't speak to the US's credibility. It is possible to oppose US policy, to not like what it does, and do so using logic and evidence - rather than simply jump on the "Bush lied people died" loony wagon.

[Laworkerbee]

Well said 2Sheds, very well said indeed.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Two sheds is conveniently forgetting the vast stocks of WMD related material destroyed by UNSCOM between 1991-98 an achievement which rendered Gulf War 2 unnecessary :roll:

I see the blinkers are still firmly on over there.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No apologies.

As for how we went from the "darling" to the enemy it's very simple:

They loved us when we were hurt and bleeding but as soon as we stood up and showed that we'd do what we believe is best for us they went back to the status quo of hating.

So there you go, if you want the world's sympathies, just be a constant victim. Allow yourself to be attacked, your people killed, your economy damaged, and you will be the darling of the world.

No thanks. That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

So you want to live in a country with no allies in a multipolar world. Great long-term strategic thinking :roll:

[Jobu]

Two sheds is conveniently forgetting the vast stocks of WMD related material destroyed by UNSCOM between 1991-98 an achievement which rendered Gulf War 2 unnecessary :roll:

I see the blinkers are still firmly on over there.


They never verified that they destroyed 'em all.
Were we to trust in Saddam's word when he never provided proof?

Bear in mind that we didn't even know his biological weapons programs existed until his son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected. Saddam had successfully kept it secret from the inspectors for 4 years. Doesn't instill much confidence in his desire to fully comply now does it?

[Jobu]

So you want to live in a country with no allies in a multipolar world. Great long-term strategic thinking :roll:

"Credibility" as defined by you does not make allies. The situation makes the ally.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

They never verified that they destroyed 'em all.
Were we to trust in Saddam's word when he never provided proof?

Bear in mind that we didn't even know his biological weapons programs existed until his son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected. Saddam had successfully kept it secret from the inspectors for 4 years. Doesn't instill much confidence in his desire to fully comply now does it?

The country was under the microscope. Saddam was in a cage. There's no way he could have got away with anything.

[Lokos]

The U.S. is more appealing to the world when we're on our knees.

The US is more appealing to the world when it engages in multilateralism. US unilateralism (insert 'Don't forget Poland' jokes here) has made it a very unpopular customer amongst the smaller, less powerful countries that rely on the 'international spirit of co-operation' and diplomacy to pursue their interests.

Was the US on its knees in the early 1990s? Because it was the most popular country around, at the time. Forget it, pal, they don't hate you 'cause you're strong. They hate you 'cause you never let them forget it, and they hate you 'cause you don't engage constructively, far too often.


The entire purpose of going into Iraq was to find out it's WMD status

Umm... No.

The entire purpose of going into Iraq was an application of the 'pre-emptive strike' doctrine, attacking Iraq's alleged WMD capability so as to prevent future attacks on US interests. It wasn't 'Let's find out what the Iraqis have'. That would have been a ridiculous CB. Instead, Bush alleged that the Iraqis had WMDs. Lying impacts this minimally. The allegation was made. Consciously wrong or just mistaken, it really doesn't matter all that much. Going into Iraq in 2003 was the single biggest geostrategic error made by the US admin, and the nation will continue paying for it.


(and if you insist on including these minor distortions, we can get into the long list of nations who have conducted wars while maintaining 100% truthiness.)


All good and well. But if the 'minor distortion' is the allegation that Iraq had WMDs in 2003, when they in fact did not, the war's very purpose ends up on the chopping block. This is the reason behind the 'Well, he was a dictator anyway' transmogrification of the causus belli.


As far as I'm concerned, the US was, and still is, perfectly within it's rights in concluding Gulf War 1, since the agency given the mandate for the job proved to be worse than incompetent.


Sure, in the realm of realpolitick. None could argue otherwise. In a world of might makes right, all things are justified.


stood up and showed that we'd do what we believe is best

How ironic. I once fought for a country that did that. Apparently, back then (in 1999), you (the US) didn't quite agree with standing up for what people believe is best. Unless you mean the US version of 'what's best', in which case I'm going to tell you a secret: Not everyone agrees with that version of 'what's best'.


So there you go, if you want the world's sympathies, just be a constant victim. Allow yourself to be attacked, your people killed, your economy damaged, and you will be the darling of the world.

No thanks. That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

Oh, I fully concur. I just wish that rule applied to everyone. Like, say, for example...

*sigh*

It's only hypocritical chauvinism when the other guy does it, no?

Lokos

[Jobu]

The country was under the microscope. Saddam was in a cage. There's no way he could have got away with anything.

And yet he had already proven to get away with it when he successfully hid his bio program for so many years. And he proved he could get around the cage (sanctions) by abusing the Oil for Food program. Etc. etc.

He could get away with anything he wanted as long as the Security Council took no action when he violated the terms of the cease-fire. Just like the non-enforcement of Versailles, it was a cage on paper only. Once Hitler decided to do as he pleased, nobody was willing to confront him. Who would confront Saddam?

[muck]

Fair enough - if you'd be so kind as to post Bush's statement in which he admits lying in order to start the war, we can talk about it. The entire purpose of going into Iraq was to find out it's WMD status (which BTW the UN is has still not concluded) so yes there was a risk of not finding what we thought might be there.

Or heck, go ahead and post anything that Bush has lied about. Not wrong about - people get to be wrong - but lied about. Apart from minor distortions which are obviously necessary in any war, I doubt there's much to be found (and if you insist on including these minor distortions, we can get into the long list of nations who have conducted wars while maintaining 100% truthiness.)

One is supposed to be combative, when the situation calls for it. If you don't like his personal style of speaking very directly, and then >gasp< doing exactly as he says he will do, well that's not his fault. I happen to disagree violently with his stance on immigration - and it irks me to hear him say that he vows to get an immigration bill - but to me that only reinforces his credibility. I don't like it, but I won't resort to pretending that he has no credibility. The guy has connected the dots from A to B to C, has done each and every thing he has said he would do - based upon criteria that he laid out precisely.

As far as I'm concerned, the US was, and still is, perfectly within it's rights in concluding Gulf War 1, since the agency given the mandate for the job proved to be worse than incompetent.

All Europe had to do in order to avoid all this unpleasantness was to give the UN some credibility. All they had to do was to back up the promise they made to us when they were entrusted with the inspections process - which a credible program would have concluded in 6 months, not left unfinished after 12 years. And let's not bring up the French bait-and-switch. The US has done exactly as it said it would do, every step of the way, which I grant you - some folks may not like, but it doesn't speak to the US's credibility. It is possible to oppose US policy, to not like what it does, and do so using logic and evidence - rather than simply jump on the "Bush lied people died" loony wagon.

I think, you have misinterpreted my comment.
I base my line of reasoning not only on his statement about the WMDs, but also on those of his advisers and other high companions that turned away from him because they are convinced that Bush cheated, lied and ignored facts to plan his war very faultily.
Also the supposed connections of Saddam Hussein to AQ weren't provable.
A large part of the people around the globe assesses as well that the war was begun with fraud representation. Without taking the useful or at least legitimated war in Afghanistan into consideration, I'd say the US operations in Iraq which were absolutely inappropriate (I ask myself till this day, why Iraq should have used it's WMDs -if they really would have owned some in 2003- and against whom they should have used it), they have only aggravated the situation in the Middle East. The surmises about the true reasons of the war are more than only a paranoid babbling of Michael Moore.
Bush has failed with regard to hurricane Katrina and many other issues as well. He has destroyed the relations of his nation to many other nations due to his harsh and combative image, his cheap one-shilling-novel rhetoric and his archaic division of the world into good and bad. It would be naive to assume that support for his policy would be a result of conviction, it is only a result of felt historical obligation and the possibility to gain economical advantages. Bush is an ignorant person, obviously not very intelligent and a saying doorknocker. The Americans could even be right concerning Iran, but hardly somebody will believe them - because the credibility of the United States simply has suffered because of this man.

[Jobu]

Sure, in the realm of realpolitick. None could argue otherwise. In a world of might makes right, all things are justified.


What other world is there, Mars?
I have no idea why people think things are different today than they were in the past. It's always been this way and always will be.

[Lokos]

Who would confront Saddam?

A Hitler comparison? For serious? In 2003 Iraq was weaker and more timid than it had ever been in the six decades previous. Decaying equipment, a crumbling officer corps, economic havoc and a distinct lack of 'patriotic love' for El Presidente together paint a pretty pathetic picture.

And there you go, portraying this sad, devastated country as some sort of burgeoning tiger, ready to claw at the world because 'no one is willing to confront it'. This tiger that spent the best part of 2002 and early 2003 desperately trying to avoid a war it could not possibly survive, let alone win?

Pfwah. Let's stop playing games. Either the US administration is insanely incompetent, or its participating in a match chess from very high on up. I like to think it's the latter.


I have no idea why people think things are different today than they were in the past. It's always been this way and always will be.

I agree. So let's stop pretending. What need for it? The US does what it wants to, when it wants to, and only those with the power to stop it have any say. Doesn't that feel better than sitting in that golden city on the hill, pretending you're a moral as well as a political and economic Leviathan?

Lokos

[Laworkerbee]

Either the US administration is insanely incompetent, or its participating in a match chess from very high on up. I like to think it's the latter.

Lokos

I hope that as well Loko's

[JJC]

losing credibility to whom? Countries may not like US/ or current administration today, but everyone knows that U.S. is still a key player as it will always be in world politics. European countries and others know that without the U.S. they're not such a powerful block alone. So no matter how much dislike there is for the U.S. these days, it won't impact much in terms of international relations .....

[Jobu]

A Hitler comparison? For serious? In 2003 Iraq was weaker and more timid than it had ever been in the six decades previous. Decaying equipment, a crumbling officer corps, economic havoc and a distinct lack of 'patriotic love' for El Presidente together paint a pretty pathetic picture.

And there you go, portraying this sad, devastated country as some sort of burgeoning tiger, ready to claw at the world because 'no one is willing to confront it'. This tiger that spent the best part of 2002 and early 2003 desperately trying to avoid a war it could not possibly survive, let alone win?

Pfwah. Let's stop playing games. Either the US administration is insanely incompetent, or its participating in a match chess from very high on up. I like to think it's the latter.



I agree. So let's stop pretending. What need for it? The US does what it wants to, when it wants to, and only those with the power to stop it have any say. Doesn't that feel better than sitting in that golden city on the hill, pretending you're a moral as well as a political and economic Leviathan?

Lokos


Baloney. Even David Kay and Charles Duelfer said that once the sanctions were dropped Saddam would get to work on rebuilding his WMD programs. France and Russia were trying to lift the sanctions. Should they have succeeded we'd be faced with not just Iran's new WMD program but Saddam's resurrected one.

Saddam could have complied, he could have stepped down and taken the asylum offer, he could have stopped shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones, he could have allowed the inspections to resume unhindered and complied not only in process but in substance. He obviously was not so desperate to avoid war as you claim.

Hans Blix's own report two months before the war shows that Iraq never intended to fully comply:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

[muck]

losing credibility to whom? Countries may not like US/ or current administration today, but everyone knows that U.S. is still a key player as it will always be in world politics.

How does this influence the fact that they lost their credibility? And I'll continue to state that it has nothing to do with the country itself but only with the current administration.


European countries and others know that without the U.S. they're not such a powerful block alone. So no matter how much dislike there is for the U.S. these days, it won't impact much in terms of international relations .....

I could state now that this use and need is based on reciprocity, but I'm too lazy to rebut the wave of protest that will overtake this thread then.
Diplomacy is a science about good relations and not on relations based on the fact that another nations existence can't be ignored.
Isolationism, that's what America's government practise.

[Jobu]

Diplomacy is a science about good relations

I disagree. Diplomacy is about shared or conflicting interests, not good relations.

[Jobu]

I agree. So let's stop pretending. What need for it? The US does what it wants to, when it wants to, and only those with the power to stop it have any say. Doesn't that feel better than sitting in that golden city on the hill, pretending you're a moral as well as a political and economic Leviathan?

Lokos


Forget the moral part, morality is subjective. The political and economic Leviathan description is accurate.

[JJC]

How does this influence the fact that they lost their credibility? And I'll continue to state that it has nothing to do with the country itself but only with the current administration.


I could state now that this use and need is based on reciprocity, but I'm too lazy to rebut the wave of protest that will overtake this thread then.
Diplomacy is a science about good relations and not on relations based on the fact that another nations existence can't be ignored.
Isolationism, that's what America's government practise.

Lost credibility in whose eyes? I think that when U.S. really loses it's credibility, the whole world will be sinking in the same boat..

I think the idea of reciprocity is important in some aspects but doesn't apply to everything in today's world. In my opinion diplomacy is an ugly science of fulfilling self interests and who ever has most power will be the key player; this is the reason why there has always been hunger for power. That's why I think issue of U.S. credibility is not so important because everyone still needs the U.S as not many nations have "powers".

[Bert]

STAB for a second language his writing is great, it's the content.

while denying freedoms to the American people through restricting free trade I mean please give me a break already.

allowing the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of their earned money O'rly?

Thats dribble no matter how it's sliced.

1: Tariffs and trade barriers, subsidies to U.S. industries - this drives up prices and prohibits business owners to maintain a diversity of products and leaves the consumer with less choice.

2: The federal government spends more money than it could possibly take in, in turn the Federal Reserve prints money to fund this spending fest, which results in inflation, and in turn higher prices. This hurts the purchasing power of Americans.

[darkstorm08]

The perception of credibility may have seemed to eb in the past few years, in reality the status quo remains... the USA is #1.

Why?

After 9/11, several foiled terrorist attempts, and general hate of the current American Administration... the USA is still going strong and will not back down.

Sentiment of the USA will always go up and down with each Administration and its actions, however due to our beliefs in capitalism and freedom, credibility in the USA will always remain.

[budgie]

Wringing our hands at the idea that "the world doesn't like us".
Mob opinions swing like pendulums, eventually they'll find a new hobby.

Better to learn from past mistakes, and soldier on.

Two fair statements - as long as learning from past mistakes includes abandoning the Bush way of doing business...

[budgie]

Don't forget 9/11 was a severe paradigm shift. Judgment is best reserved.

Reserved till when? Almost every 'national security' decision made since 9/11 has been a failure. 9/11 is no longer a viable ecuse for the excesses of the current administration.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The entire purpose of going into Iraq was an application of the 'pre-emptive strike' doctrine, attacking Iraq's alleged WMD capability so as to prevent future attacks on US interests. It wasn't 'Let's find out what the Iraqis have'. That would have been a ridiculous CB. Instead, Bush alleged that the Iraqis had WMDs. Lying impacts this minimally. The allegation was made. Consciously wrong or just mistaken, it really doesn't matter all that much. Going into Iraq in 2003 was the single biggest geostrategic error made by the US admin, and the nation will continue paying for it.

The US wasn't out eating dinner at TGI Fridays' and suddenly decided to put down it's Potato Skinny Dippers and accuse Iraq of having WMDs. The UN itself accused Iraq of having WMD - why else continue drastic "sanctions" against them in order to inspect for the WMD? If the issue was settled, what was the 12 year program all about? If the issue is settled, why is the UN still in Iraq looking for WMD? The US position on WMDs did not differ materially from that of the UN - there's really no traction whatsoever to be found in order to assert that the US manufactured the suspicion that Iraq had WMD on it's own.

Where we differed was in enforcement of the GW1 cease-fire mandate. As you know, part of that mandate was to conclude the inspections for suspected WMD sites. The UN preferred to run it as a business, the US preferred to conclude the matter, since we were largely footing the bill for the no-fly zone, and after 9/11 had no appetite for watching certain members play footsie with Saddam any longer.



How ironic. I once fought for a country that did that. Apparently, back then (in 1999), you (the US) didn't quite agree with standing up for what people believe is best. Unless you mean the US version of 'what's best', in which case I'm going to tell you a secret: Not everyone agrees with that version of 'what's best'.

You betcha. (see list of people claiming the US lacks credibility)



It's only hypocritical chauvinism when the other guy does it, no?


Is chauvinism supposed to be bad now? Maybe I missed one too many ABC After School Specials - What If I'm Wrong?, 1983, starring Lance Kerwin and Kristy McNichol. I suppose that the oversocialized among us will be utterly shocked to see such a concept advanced, but I hardly understand how one is supposed to fight for one's culture - indeed one's anything - if one is not convinced that they maintain a superior position. It's kind of weird that Europe is both mired in a soup of it's own self-doubt and self-loathing and at the same time somehow manages to appoint itself the arbiter of our national credibility.


The Americans could even be right concerning Iran, but hardly somebody will believe them - because the credibility of the United States simply has suffered because of this man.

Ah, good point there. I agree. And exactly the same thing happened with Iraq didn't it? And that was before Bush lied, and Bush became a King ruling by decree, and Bush was a torturer, and Bush invaded everybody's privacy etc. This "lack of credibility" due to Iraq was in place even before we took any of the actions that some now say removed our credibility. Therefore my position remains - it's all a baseless crock.

The UN failed over Iraq because of a culture of appeasement, inaction, and outright corruption. The UN is now set to fail on Iran for all the same reasons, plus it has the added bonus of being able to cite evil mastermind Bush as a reason to not do anything.

So, what's important here - that the principles that have maintained security for the past 60 years continue to be maintained - or that we throw the knuckle-dragging, chauvinistic Americans under the bus - and end up with nuclear weapons in the hands of anybody who cares to have them? Because its' awfully judgmental of us to say who can and can't have what - and >horrors< to actually do something to prevent them from having them.

Anybody who thinks that a new President will suddenly restore the US to some imagined golden throne of superiority has missed the boat. Iraq, the Patriot act, all the things that Evil King Bush is accused of single handedly implementing - were in fact the result of legislative deliberation - hundreds of votes in Congress - not by Bush's fiat. Our next President won't get to reverse them at his/her whim, and therefore, we'll be just as hated as ever. And I'm all broken up about it.

[California Joe]

Chauvin was French, just sayin'....

[8thidpathfinderpower]

WELL.....I have read some of the posts on this here thread, and I have to say the people who believe everything the media puts out, both from the percieved good, and the percieved bad is totally mindblowing.

To tell you the truth, alot of what this here thread is about, deals with people and what they believe. And the seemingly endlessnes of anti-american rhetoric by those who want to further their own agendas is being propageted through out world wide media. And people regardless of where they are from, just lap that stuff right up.

In the 1980s, the USA was made out to be the percieved bad guy when we deployed Pershing II missles in Germany, and conducted one of the worlds biggest arms build ups in histroy. And, alot of the bad guy stuff was put right out there by the USSR to put political pressure on the USA to back down. (we did the same to the former USSR too)

Now, flash forward a decade later...the USA is the percieved bad guy again,altho with a different set of circumstances. World opinion is being influanced by the amount of rhetoric being spewed through out world wide media outlets, by insurgent groups and Al Queda to counter the military response in the GWOT.

And does this effect public opinion? You bet it does. And it does effect to a large extent US policies and posistion on a global level.

World opinion shifts like the weather. One minute, it will be America the hero, when we give massive amounts of forigen aid, and humanitarian aid, and it will shift to the oppisite side when we decide to protect our intrests and go to war.

So, inclosing, alot of what people percieve, is influenced by the world wide media. And, it will continue to effect US intrests and policies.

[nahimov]

The US wasn't out eating dinner at TGI Fridays' and suddenly decided to put down it's Potato Skinny Dippers and accuse Iraq of having WMDs. The UN itself accused Iraq of having WMD - why else continue drastic "sanctions" against them in order to inspect for the WMD?

Interesting how UN is used when it serves US interests and totally disregarded when UN is not willing to accept US policies. Even though UN considered the possibility of Iraq having WMDs it never authorized military action. So whatever reasons US had to invade Iraq they were reasons of US government not UN or anyone else.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Interesting how UN is used when it serves US interests and totally disregarded when UN is not willing to accept US policies. Even though UN considered the possibility of Iraq having WMDs it never authorized military action. So whatever reasons US had to invade Iraq they were reasons of US government not UN or anyone else.

The US always attempts to use the UN - unilateral action is always a last resort. But the US is under no obligation to defer to the UN in affairs of state - and to my mind anyway, deserves all the credit in the world for attempting to work within the laughably corrupted system for as far as it could. That being said - the US is a democracy, and it's actions are a result of the will of the people - which cannot be said even for all the members of the UNSC. I see a big difference between nations that form policy as a result of democratic consensus vs. despotism.

How's the UNSC doing on Iran anyway? Anybody else taking up the mantle of defender of freedom, since we lack credibility? Or have we all decided it's OK for Iran to develop a nuclear program in secret? Let me guess, we all decided that it's totally unacceptable, and are making lots of impassioned speeches about it, and we also decided to do absolutely nothing about it. :lol: Let's keep harping about Bush and America, it will keep people's eyes of of such messy developments which may serve to underline failure.

[chintin]

Sadam Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction Remember They Just Havent Been Found... LOL

[IvanIII]

Really funny some people still think US went to Iraq for WMD just a big haha...


Well well lets see what the future brings , i got a feelings Russia will be looking for WMD in georgia very soon...:roll:

[11 Bravo]

It doesn't matter who they elect. Anyone will be an improvement

This coming from a non US citizen....bollocks !.

[11 Bravo]

Interesting how UN is used when it serves US interests and totally disregarded when UN is not willing to accept US policies. Even though UN considered the possibility of Iraq having WMDs , never authorized military action. So whatever reasons US had to invade Iraq they were reasons of US government not UN or anyone else.



" IT NEVER AUTHORIZED MILITARY ACTION".....now that's laughable if for nothing else how wankerous and behind the times the corrupt UN are !. They only go where little needs to be done , and at best sit back and let genocide happen over rules of their engagement and like poppycock.

[Bert]

This coming from a non US citizen....bollocks !.

The current U.S. foreign policy affects the entire world, so yes, he has a say.

[vryhpyammoadded]

People are still falling for the good cop, bad cop… LOL, Love it! Kids, the game was rigged long ago and not just by that Dark side cabal of Darth Cheney, the evil Emporer Bush and those tricky NEOCONS. Sheesh… :roll:
Also, WMD had little to nothing to do with it. Osama and then Saddam simply pissed off the Earths key players, handing them plenty of excuses to go mucking about in Iraq and begin open season to slap any other idiots about who also got out of line.
Furthermore…Credibility means being more like Europeans? Bwaha hahaha hahahahahahha… Great, love it!
Humanity is so doomed, rofl

[Rifleman]

We wake up in the morning, and our evil deeds begin before we have time to curse the alarm. As we slept, our refrigerators were hard at work giving Chileans skin cancer. We turn on the air conditioner, and amphibians grow extra limbs. We breathe and contribute to global warming and killer hurricanes. We put on our clothes and cover the world with sweatshops. We slip on our athletic shoes and tie children to workbenches with the laces. We poison the soil by eating breakfast. We drive to work and drown Pacific Islanders. We go to the doctor and kill cuddly, little animals. We devastate countries we have never heard of....Orginal American Sin

or

An Islamofascist walks the streets of America and sees a man enter a massage parlor. "What an immoral society!" he thinks. He does not notice the men who do not go in. He sees the temptations Americans are subject to, but not their resistance to those temptations. He sees their immorality, but not their morality.

In "Christianity and Islam," a chapter of The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Jeremy Johns says that "the relationship between Christianity and Islam during the Middle Ages is usually seen, in the West, in terms of military conflict, and, in the East, in terms of the Arab contribution to Western culture." (The West fixates on the conquest of most of Christendom by the armies of Islam; the East is stung by the ingratitude of Christians and their failure to acknowledge the superiority of Islamic culture.) The latter sounds like the USA don't it...we are going to take the "Moral High Ground" and give you democracy..and you gonna like it, damn it!

It seems to me this whole world thinks of the other as an "immoral society". We are not at war with the Islamofascist or terrorist or; et cetera. It is simply a culture war. We have superiority of Islamic culture, or European Culture or American Culture.

I have said a 100 times that the world is heading into a culture war. WWII took what, 80 million lives? A world culture war would kill 2 billion...brother aginst brother ya know. IMO David, I think U.S. Credibility is not all that important right now. What is import is that someone like George Marshal sits down and asks, what is the right thing to do.

"The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world." -- G. K. Chesterton

[Lokos]

Even David Kay and Charles Duelfer said that once the sanctions were dropped Saddam would get to work on rebuilding his WMD programs.

The accusation made against Iraq in 2003 wasn't that it would be rebuilding its WMD programmes if sanctions were dropped, but that Iraq was already on the verge of possessing WMDs. Your argument is therefore reductio ad absurdum.


France and Russia were trying to lift the sanctions. Should they have succeeded we'd be faced with not just Iran's new WMD program but Saddam's resurrected one.


Says who? What WMD programme? I keep hearing about it. But, aparting from Colin Powell pointing at alleged chemical weapons labs on a grainy satellite map, I haven't seen much of an actualized 'WMD programme'. Why do you keep pretending that this shrewd chess move needs justification of the absurd sort you propose?

Unlike Iraq, which most likely never tested a WMD, let alone built a deployable one, North Korea is sitting pretty with a burgeoning nuclear programme. If rogue state possession of WMD programmes is clear causus belli, why have we not witnessed the destruction of Kim Jong Il's regime?


he could have allowed the inspections to resume unhindered and complied not only in process but in substance. He obviously was not so desperate to avoid war as you claim.


IIRC, the UN indicated to the US that Iraq was complying, directly prior to the onset of the war. The US ignored this. I seem to remember a 7,000 page report on Iraq's weapons programmes being more or less ignored by the US, in preparation for the war. Saddam wanted a war with the US as much as he wanted a bullet to the brain. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.


Forget the moral part, morality is subjective.

Morality is subjective? Funny, that's not what the folks the US dresses down for 'human rights abuses' and other such moral considerations are told. So, we're agreed, morality is entirely subjective?


If the issue was settled, what was the 12 year program all about? If the issue is settled, why is the UN still in Iraq looking for WMD?

You tell me. Who gave the UN its intelligence? Who provided the satellite imagery? Where are the WMDs? Saddam didn't manage to hide himself, in the end, but he somehow managed to hide a WMD programme? Such ventures aren't exactly conducted from the trunk of a car. They require facilities, materials and, most of all, trained personnel. No one was willing to spill the beans? Not one former scientist, now working as a taxi driver in Baghdad? Not one former technician, looking for a US reward for services (information) performed?

Is the US search effort - a matter of some prestige, I gather - incompetent? I think not. After four years, I'd say that, even if the Iraqis were making noises about WMDs as a form of deterrent, their actual programme was not nearly as extensive as claimed and alleged.


You betcha. (see list of people claiming the US lacks credibility)


I'm glad we agree.


I suppose that the oversocialized among us will be utterly shocked to see such a concept advanced, but I hardly understand how one is supposed to fight for one's culture - indeed one's anything - if one is not convinced that they maintain a superior position.

2Sheds, you're getting me all wrong. I can't stand hypocrites. I have nothing against chauvinists.

Lokos

[a_very_ex_STAB]

And yet he had already proven to get away with it when he successfully hid his bio program for so many years. And he proved he could get around the cage (sanctions) by abusing the Oil for Food program. Etc. etc.

He could get away with anything he wanted as long as the Security Council took no action when he violated the terms of the cease-fire. Just like the non-enforcement of Versailles, it was a cage on paper only. Once Hitler decided to do as he pleased, nobody was willing to confront him. Who would confront Saddam?

LOL yeah everyone who the US disapproves of is the new Hitler :roll: You guys are really in danger of overusing that analogy.

Saddam was a small town gangster made good who unlike Hitler wanted to be the big fish in a small pond. That's it. He was no threat to anyone after being neutered post 1991.

He got a bloody nose after invading Iran and only pushed his luck with Kuwait because he got confusing signals from the USA that suggested to him that they weren't interested. He'd learned his lesson.

[Durandal]

Every time the US shows the world "evidence" against Iran, it is chided by not only world leaders, but people right here on MPNet. This underscores the depth of the problems created by this administration. I wondered aloud some years ago what the Bush administration would do to US credibility. Now the question is: How long before it's back? Also, does the US have the ability to take her lumps humbly? Or will she continue to lose friends until the world is staked against her as one? How could the US go from the darling country in the days after 9/11 to the world enemy (perceived) in just a few years? (IMO, the tide began to turn in 2004 during 1st Fallujah). Can the US stand to be apologetic? Should the US be apologetic?

I do not trust a single word of this Administration and I voted for it in 2000.

I loathe the fact that we have a dumbass as our leader who on one hand claims to want democracy, transparency, and freedom, and the on the other supports citizens being stripped of all rights the moment they have been labeled a terrorist.

I do not trust an Executive leader who, for the past 6 plus years has tried to undermine civil liberties AND take more power from the Legislative Branch.

I do not trust a leader who claims Iran is our greatest threat but buddies up to a dictator in Pakistan...a nation that actually IS a threat to the rest of the world...a nation that is in the stone age, has nukes, and is a safe haven for some of the worst terrorist elements in the world.

Do my comments help you understand where a conservative libertarian has gone since 2000?

Trust THIS administration (or most of Congress for that matter)?

I mean, you are joking right?

[BugHunt]

Your anti-american agenda sickens and disgusts me Durandal! p-)




[/sarcasm] (for those who dribble)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Your anti-american agenda sickens and disgusts me Durandal! p-)




[/sarcasm] (for those who dribble)

Why do you hate freedom so much

[Atlantic Friend]

"Credibility" as defined by you does not make allies. The situation makes the ally.

As situation (if there is such thing as a totally shared analysis of the same situation) changes all the time, with the ebbs and flows of geopolitics, that means there cannot be any alliance of any kind, beyond a mere temporary agreement.

Therefore every country has a right to put its national interest before any other consideration, and any notion of "honor", "friendship", "historical ties", "common civilization" is utterly delusional and irrelevant. And so is the quaint notion of "betrayal", then. Being stabbed in the back will only mean you deluded yourself into thinking you wouldn't be - after all, in this logic, backs are MADE to be stabbed the very minute you and the other country stop being in perfect agreement about anything.

If this is how the world is supposed to be run, then why give a sh*t about "credibility" ? Sounds equally delusional to say "country X isn't credible", or to claim credibility for your own...

[Bitogno]

Chauvin was French, just sayin'....
It is true hopefully in english there's the word jingoism that has almost the same meaning.

And in addition Nicolas Chauvin enlisted at the age of 18, wounded 17 times could have his place on MP.

[BugHunt]

Why do you hate freedom so much


Im prejudiced against all races and religions your honour!


-HJ Simpson

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Unlike Iraq, which most likely never tested a WMD, let alone built a deployable one, North Korea is sitting pretty with a burgeoning nuclear programme. If rogue state possession of WMD programmes is clear causus belli, why have we not witnessed the destruction of Kim Jong Il's regime?

...if I may...
Chemical weapons count as WMD, don't they? And wasn't it Iraq who gassed both Iranians and their own Kurdish population? Therefore Iraq not only had WMD, but used them. As to why we haven't done the same for N. Korea, it's a simple matter of degree - 1)for all it's bluster, NK hasn't attacked anybody and 2)NK is a much harder nut to crack. In terms of the risk/benefit equation, an invasion doesn't make sense. An attack on North Korea would create more dead Americans in the first two hours of fighting than we've seen in 4 years of Iraq.



IIRC, the UN indicated to the US that Iraq was complying, directly prior to the onset of the war. The US ignored this. I seem to remember a 7,000 page report on Iraq's weapons programmes being more or less ignored by the US, in preparation for the war. Saddam wanted a war with the US as much as he wanted a bullet to the brain. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

It's easy - he had been assured by certain members of the UNSC of a veto of any use of force (which he got), and he bet on the idea that there would be no invasion without the UN's blessing.

If you can show me a report from the UN that shows Saddam finally decided to allow the inspections, I'd be glad to check it out.



You tell me. Who gave the UN its intelligence? Who provided the satellite imagery? Where are the WMDs? Saddam didn't manage to hide himself, in the end, but he somehow managed to hide a WMD programme? Such ventures aren't exactly conducted from the trunk of a car. They require facilities, materials and, most of all, trained personnel. No one was willing to spill the beans? Not one former scientist, now working as a taxi driver in Baghdad? Not one former technician, looking for a US reward for services (information) performed?

I guess you haven't been keeping up with this story? The UN is currently in Iraq, against the wishes of the US coalition, conducting further WMD inspections. The US wants them out -other players (read Europe) want them in - so I don't see how you can lay this at the feet of the US. The UN still believes the WMD issue isn't settled. I honestly don't know where you're coming up with this stuff - Iraq had a WMD program, they used WMD, they refused to allow transparent inspections, we did have informers (some of whom proved to be less than accurate/trustworthy) - based on all that we simply believed they had more of a program then they did (another calculated risk). It's deceptively simple.



2Sheds, you're getting me all wrong. I can't stand hypocrites. I have nothing against chauvinists.


Oh, ok then. I may spend my time fighting against the current but at least I'm consistent in my jackassery.

[WolverineBlue]

Credibility: having a philosophy and then making people believe you believe in said philosophy

Iraq: get rid of Saddam Hussein; dismantle WMD program
credibility problems: lied about extent of Iraqi WMD program; used this lie to invade Iraq
re-establish credibity: admit reason for invading Iraq was to show the Muslim street that the US wasn't effing around, take out Saddam, and have nice big base next to Iran and Saudi Arabia
Credibility re-established

[a_very_ex_STAB]

...if I may...
Chemical weapons count as WMD, don't they?

Actually chemical weapons are a not very tactically useful battlefield weapon. Of course it suits certain people's political agendas to associate them with nuclear and biological weapons under the rather ambiguous umbrella term WMD as though they are some sort satanic strategic ultra weapon.

[Beowulf]

Two sheds is conveniently forgetting the vast stocks of WMD related material destroyed by UNSCOM between 1991-98 an achievement which rendered Gulf War 2 unnecessary :roll:

I see the blinkers are still firmly on over there.

Is that why Richard Butler wrote "The Greatest Threat"?

[WolverineBlue]

Actually chemical weapons are a not very tactically useful battlefield weapon. Of course it suits certain people's political agendas to associate them with nuclear and biological weapons under the rather ambiguous umbrella term WMD as though they are some sort satanic strategic ultra weapon.

WTF are you trying to say? WMD by nature are a "strategic" weapon. But, in fact, chemical weapons are possibly the most tactically suited of the three types of weapons classified as "WMD." Ask the Soviets what the first thing they would've done if they'd gone into Germany -- chem attacks on NATO airbases

[Baboonass]

Actually chemical weapons are a not very tactically useful battlefield weapon. Of course it suits certain people's political agendas to associate them with nuclear and biological weapons under the rather ambiguous umbrella term WMD as though they are some sort satanic strategic ultra weapon.



WMD is simply a newer version of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical).

The term was coined before 9-11 and included chemical weapons.

[Jobu]

As situation (if there is such thing as a totally shared analysis of the same situation) changes all the time, with the ebbs and flows of geopolitics, that means there cannot be any alliance of any kind, beyond a mere temporary agreement.

Therefore every country has a right to put its national interest before any other consideration, and any notion of "honor", "friendship", "historical ties", "common civilization" is utterly delusional and irrelevant. And so is the quaint notion of "betrayal", then. Being stabbed in the back will only mean you deluded yourself into thinking you wouldn't be - after all, in this logic, backs are MADE to be stabbed the very minute you and the other country stop being in perfect agreement about anything.

If this is how the world is supposed to be run, then why give a sh*t about "credibility" ? Sounds equally delusional to say "country X isn't credible", or to claim credibility for your own...

Right on. It's a dog eat dog world, always has been, always will be. Why try to deny it or operate as if it's not the way the world works? You'll only be handicapping yourself and giving the other guy the advantage to exploit the situation at your expense.

The USA cannot worry about what someone else thinks of our credibility. This is our time to exploit the possibilities that lie ahead of us. If we don't do it, the Chinese will, the Indians will, the Russians will, etc.

[WolverineBlue]

Exactly -- pragmatism trumps idealism at the end of the day. It's a harsh world.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

WTF are you trying to say? WMD by nature are a "strategic" weapon. But, in fact, chemical weapons are possibly the most tactically suited of the three types of weapons classified as "WMD." Ask the Soviets what the first thing they would've done if they'd gone into Germany -- chem attacks on NATO airbases

That would be regarded as tactical not strategic use
So I guess you're agreeing with me that they are a battlefield system then and not Dr Evils' satanic super weapon?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

WMD is simply a newer version of NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical).

The term was coined before 9-11 and included chemical weapons.

I realize that many years ago I did NBC defence training :)

I stand by my point that lumping CW in with nuclear and biological weapons is disingenuous and an attempt to mislead the public.

[Beowulf]

WTF are you trying to say? WMD by nature are a "strategic" weapon. But, in fact, chemical weapons are possibly the most tactically suited of the three types of weapons classified as "WMD." Ask the Soviets what the first thing they would've done if they'd gone into Germany -- chem attacks on NATO airbases


That would be regarded as tactical not strategic use

....who's on first?

exactly.

[Beowulf]

I realize that many years ago I did NBC defence training :)

I stand by my point that lumping CW in with nuclear and biological weapons is disingenuous and an attempt to mislead the public.

I don't understand why you think CW is so different.

Do you mean in terms of impementation, effects, manufacture?

Why is it disingenous to group CW with Bio and Nuclear weapons?

[WolverineBlue]

I'm not quite sure either. p-)

Something about stategery, tactix and the price of Busch Light in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I don't understand why you think CW is so different?

Do you mean in terms of impementation, effects, manufacture?

Why is it disingenous to group CW with Bio and Nuclear weapons?

Primarily in terms of effectivess in the infliction of casualties - (obviously they're not harmless!)

[Beowulf]

I'm not quite sure either. p-)

Something about stategery, tactix and the price of Busch Light in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

[whispers] I think it might have someting to do with politics...


HOOK EM HORNS!


edit: speaking of Iowa, I heard we can't cut em up anymore, guess it's back to the old cement shoelaces....

[Baboonass]

I realize that many years ago I did NBC defence training :)

I stand by my point that lumping CW in with nuclear and biological weapons is disingenuous and an attempt to mislead the public.


All of these systems are of tactical use, not the "Dr. Evil" death machine variety.

WMD's (or NBC if you prefer) all acheive the same effect, a small amount producing very large causulties in an indiscriminate fashion. The effects of every NBC system is long lasting and has detremental effects to the local population for a long period of time.

Chemical is on the lower side of Bio and Nuclear weapons, but the effect is still the same.

[Beowulf]

Primarily in terms of effectivess in the infliction of casualties - (obviously they're not harmless!)

I still don't understand.

Do you mean that CW doesn't inflict the same number or type of casualties as the others.

[Jobu]

Does the Gay Bomb (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114020)count as CW or BW?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Does the Gay Bomb (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114020)count as CW or BW?


It's Bum Warfare so I guess it must be BW :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I still don't understand.

Do you mean that CW doesn't inflict the same number or type of casualties as the others.

As Matchanu says above there is a quantitative difference

[Baboonass]

As Matchanu says above there is a quantitative difference

In definition of a WMD? no.

In reletive terms? yes.


A chem weapon is harder to depoly and is difficult to contain. Never-the-less, in reletive terms to conventional weapons, it takes a small amount to produce large numbers of causualties.

I think you are betting on a lame horse here just for arguments sake.

If the U.S. used chemical weapons against Iran, would you not say we were using a WMD against Iran? or would that be o.k.?



In terms of NBC-R (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Radiological) a dirty bomb fits into the WMD catagory. A dirty bomb is by no means nearly as effective as a full yield thermo-nuclear device, nor will it produce nearly as many causualites, but the long term effects and area denial classifiy this as a WMD.


Mustard gas is nasty stuff. 2 of my reletives died of mustard gas related injuries after WW1.

[California Joe]

It is true hopefully in english there's the word jingoism that has almost the same meaning.

And in addition Nicolas Chauvin enlisted at the age of 18, wounded 17 times could have his place on MP.

Pal, it was just a joke not my opinion of the French.

[Beowulf]

As Matchanu says above there is a quantitative difference

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, you are a sophist.

Why is it so difficult to try and get you to expound upon YOUR opinion?

I'm outta here, back to off topic.

cheers

[redflash]

"Credibility" now seems to be a function of one's willingness to participate in groupthink designed to foster appeasement, and justify inaction. Why bother addressing the salient points of any issue, when you can simply say "oh gosh, the US has no credibility"? It's just so much more convenient. It's also a handy tool to perpetuate de facto European superiority. Pretending the US has no credibility, or that is somehow needs to "get it back" - is simply a last ditch effort to avoid facing facts and instead discredit one of the few voices of dissent in the increasingly compliant herd.

And I have no doubt at all that with the correct leader, we will again be brought into line and miraculously regain this "credibility" bestowed upon us from on high.
p-) translate :
thug holding a gun and telling everyone around him, i do not care what you guys think about me, i'm the one holding the gun.

[Durandal]

Right on. It's a dog eat dog world, always has been, always will be. Why try to deny it or operate as if it's not the way the world works? You'll only be handicapping yourself and giving the other guy the advantage to exploit the situation at your expense.

The USA cannot worry about what someone else thinks of our credibility. This is our time to exploit the possibilities that lie ahead of us. If we don't do it, the Chinese will, the Indians will, the Russians will, etc.

Except that is not what is happening.

We are screwing around and losing out on FAR more profitable ventures.

[INAT]

Everyone always talks about how the US government is foolish or stupid or misinformed.They know what they are doing give them some credit .Destablizing the world gives neo-cons the excuse to use militarism . it is better i guess to be thought of as a fool than as what these actions really are.

[Lokos]

Chemical weapons count as WMD, don't they? And wasn't it Iraq who gassed both Iranians and their own Kurdish population? Therefore Iraq not only had WMD, but used them.

Indeed. At neither point did the US utilize the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. In fact, at one point (circa 1988) the US Administration actively supported the Iraqi war effort, which, granted, included operations conducted with the release of chemical weapons. So, if it was all about the use of chemical weapons - or the willingness to use it - and the mere possession thereof, why the twelve year wait? In 1991 the American led force that removed the Iraqis from Kuwait had, more or less, routed the Iraqi Army. Why was there not a march on Baghdad?

Easy: In 1991 the causus belli was not WMDs, Iraqi possession thereof, or their use. It was the invasion of Kuwait, and the destabilization of the regional balance of power, as well as the concurrent threat to the stability of the global oil market. For Washington a pre-eminent Iraq is about as useful as a pre-eminent Iran. The best combination is a balance of competing regimes, none of which can rise to regional dominance.

Therefore, equating GW2 with 'finishing the job' is strange. It is another reductio ad absurdum, in effect. The job in question wasn't even the job in 1991. The aim of the GW was achieved. The US was decisively the victor. The 2nd GW had a different motivation.


N. Korea, it's a simple matter of degree - 1)for all it's bluster, NK hasn't attacked anybody and 2)NK is a much harder nut to crack

But so was Iraq's WMD programme. Bluster, that is. Apart from gassing a few Kurds and Iranians (and who doesn't have the capability to deploy gas on a tactical level?), what has Iraq done apart from make noises? Nothing, really. What we have are two instances of bluster, but one that was acted on.

The second point I agree with: NK would have been much harder. But if the decision to go to war rests on the twin laurels of WMDs and the willingness to use them, I believe NK, with its proven capability is a much more likely choice for intervention. Yet, the toughness of the nut seems to seriously affect the willingness to stop a 'moral wrong', and an alleged threat to US national security. Why?

Because 3rd world WMDs aren't the underlying issue behind the attack order. The US knows neither power could really have threatened it. If it could have, the US wouldn't have acted. The Cold War was one big 'waiting to happen' because neither side had the willingness to pull the trigger, knowing how likely it is to backfire on them. In invading Iraq, the US knew it posed no real danger. Real danger requires a lot more conviction to tackle!


he had been assured by certain members of the UNSC of a veto of any use of force (which he got), and he bet on the idea that there would be no invasion without the UN's blessing.


But I thought you said the US was just enforcing UN mandates? The US seems to enforce only the mandates that suit it. Therefore, the UN is a bit-player. Good to pay lip-service to. Bad for policy making. And note that I'm not saying that's wrong. But pretending it's otherwise is silly.


conducting further WMD inspections. The US wants them out -other players (read Europe) want them in - so I don't see how you can lay this at the feet of the US

What am I laying at the feet of the US? Inspections, inspections... Just no WMDs. That's the problem. US prestige can only be salvaged with actualized WMDs, or a programme likely to produce them in quantity. Neither has surfaced.


Iraq had a WMD program, they used WMD

I conceeded only reluctantly that shells loaded with gas can be considered 'WMDs'. By this definition, WMDs have been in use since WWI.

I'll quote Michael Evans, of Times Magazine fame:


There are two common denominators that have survived the Cold War: by definition, today’s WMD systems in the hands of rogue or potentially hostile states have to be weapons fitted with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, and the intention of the attacker, whether using short-range or long-range systems, would be to have a strategic impact. In other words, the launching of chemical artillery shells or the dropping of bombs containing biological agents would have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves.


Two elements exist therein: actus reus and mens rea. The act itself - fitting and deploying NBC warheads to weapons - and the intent to use them strategically. Can we derive WMDs from Iraqi chemical artillery? I think it's a silly argument to make. The US struck pre-emptively. This signifies a belief in being struck, had it not struck first. Iraqi chemical artillery could not have hurt US national security.


based on all that we simply believed they had more of a program then they did (another calculated risk). It's deceptively simple.


I don't think the US government is this stupid, nor the CIA this naive. WMDs are WMDs are WMDs. They had very little to do with the decision to remove Saddam in 2003. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.


Oh, ok then. I may spend my time fighting against the current but at least I'm consistent in my jackassery

Consistency is half the battle!

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

Right on. It's a dog eat dog world, always has been, always will be. Why try to deny it or operate as if it's not the way the world works? You'll only be handicapping yourself and giving the other guy the advantage to exploit the situation at your expense.

The USA cannot worry about what someone else thinks of our credibility. This is our time to exploit the possibilities that lie ahead of us. If we don't do it, the Chinese will, the Indians will, the Russians will, etc.

As long as every country, including the dominant one, is ready to fully accept the consequences of such a world vision, why not ?

Dog eats dog can work - but then expect and demand nothing from the rest of the pack, and complain not, whatever they do. It's the era of the Sacred Selfishness, and what is good for the geese is good for the gander.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

As long as every country, including the dominant one, is ready to fully accept the consequences of such a world vision, why not ?

Dog eats dog can work - but then expect and demand nothing from the rest of the pack, and complain not, whatever they do. It's the era of the Sacred Selfishness, and what is good for the geese is good for the gander.

Americans on here keep talking like Jobu as though they really still are in the number 1 slot and expect to stay that way. They still don't seem to realize how uncomfortable a ride it is going to be as a declining power in a multipolar world. They are too used to resting on their laurels.

[Laworkerbee]

Americans on here keep talking like Jobu as though they really still are in the number 1 slot and expect to stay that way. They still don't seem to realize how uncomfortable a ride it is going to be as a declining power in a multipolar world. They are too used to resting on their laurels.

We are all part of the declining West are we not? or are you going to shove us off to some North American block :|

[Namus]

If only we could get hit again and have thousands killed in order to regain our darling status.

dying from laughter roflroflrofl

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So, if it was all about the use of chemical weapons - or the willingness to use it - and the mere possession thereof, why the twelve year wait? In 1991 the American led force that removed the Iraqis from Kuwait had, more or less, routed the Iraqi Army. Why was there not a march on Baghdad?

I seem to remember something about an agreement to not march on Baghdad...if Iraq agreed to WMD inspections. You don't get the "not" unless the "if" is fulfilled.



Therefore, equating GW2 with 'finishing the job' is strange. It is another reductio ad absurdum, in effect. The job in question wasn't even the job in 1991. The aim of the GW was achieved. The US was decisively the victor. The 2nd GW had a different motivation.

See previous post.



But so was Iraq's WMD programme. Bluster, that is. Apart from gassing a few Kurds and Iranians (and who doesn't have the capability to deploy gas on a tactical level?), what has Iraq done apart from make noises? Nothing, really. What we have are two instances of bluster, but one that was acted on.

Exactly. It's the "acting on" that costs lives and money, and what can make the difference. You may be able to dismiss GW1 as if it was simply a footnote and no longer a going concern, but to one of the nations that paid for it, that supplied nearly all of the forces in harm's way, who continued to pay to administer the cease fire, and who faced the very real possibility of doing it all again on a larger scale (and not on it's own favorable terms), the issue was not so minor. We fought one war, and we were entitled to have it concluded before our "disarmed" enemy had a chance to strike at us.



Yet, the toughness of the nut seems to seriously affect the willingness to stop a 'moral wrong', and an alleged threat to US national security. Why?

...

In invading Iraq, the US knew it posed no real danger. Real danger requires a lot more conviction to tackle!

Hey guess what requires even less conviction to tackle...doing nothing. Plenty of that to go around.



...Therefore, the UN is a bit-player. Good to pay lip-service to. Bad for policy making...

I agree. I only invoke the UN to eliminate arguments from people who insist that the US woke up one morning and decided that Iraq had WMD. For those who insist on viewing the UN as the ultimate arbiter of truth, the fact that they believed (and still believe) Iraq had WMD, is a great way to derail them.



US prestige can only be salvaged with actualized WMDs, or a programme likely to produce them in quantity.

That may or may not be true. It depends on who you ask and their grasp on geopolitics. But that's the price to be paid for anybody willing to take action, isn't it? Shall we all wait for Iran to conclude it's "peaceful" nuclear program with no oversight, then in 5 years announce they have a nuclear weapon? Or will we risk being wrong in order to stop it? I for one am thankful that there are still nations willing to risk and be wrong, because waiting to be right can be far worse.

Iran seems to have a pretty good grasp on geopolitics, but even more importantly, they know which nations are willing to risk and which aren't. We'll most likely get the chance to find out about that program of theirs.

[ElHombre]

Every time the US shows the world "evidence" against Iran, it is chided by not only world leaders, but people right here on MPNet. This underscores the depth of the problems created by this administration. I wondered aloud some years ago what the Bush administration would do to US credibility. Now the question is: How long before it's back? Also, does the US have the ability to take her lumps humbly? Or will she continue to lose friends until the world is staked against her as one? How could the US go from the darling country in the days after 9/11 to the world enemy (perceived) in just a few years? (IMO, the tide began to turn in 2004 during 1st Fallujah). Can the US stand to be apologetic? Should the US be apologetic?

There is at least one step that can help restore US credibility. There have been a large number of folks in Washington, DC, both pols and media types alike, who were completely wrong about Iraq and have never been held acountable. Quite simply, that has to stop. Some deserve criminal prosecutin, but most (the media types, for the most part) will simply be told, 'You were completely wrong about Iraq. Why should we listen to anything you have to say ever again?' every time they try to assert their opinions publicy.

BTW, the tide of opinion started to (justifiably) turn against the US long before Fallujah. As soon as the Bush admin strarted making noises about Iraq, most reasonable folks had a giant 'WTF?!?' moment.

[NewsMan]

BTW, the tide of opinion started to (justifiably) turn against the US long before Fallujah. As soon as the Bush admin strarted making noises about Iraq, most reasonable folks had a giant 'WTF?!?' moment.

This has been a very interesting thread to say the least.

As for this, you're right now that I look back more. Hell, I was assigned o cover the first DC anti-war march in Feb 2003. I think my thoughts go back to Fallujah because it was during that fight that some of my roomates (all Muslims - Turk/Afghan) started to look at me as if I were THE United States herself.

[ElHombre]

Hell, I was assigned o cover the first DC anti-war march in Feb 2003.

It wasn't just protesters. There were a wide range of experts who expressed everything from reservations to outright bewilderment to the idea of invading Iraq.

Still, I'm glad I wasn't abroad.

[Namus]

I can only imagine what will happed when $$$ bubble will burst!

[getl0st]

I can only imagine what will happed when $$$ bubble will burst!

2nd Great Depression

This is all engineered by the central banks who create money out of thin air...

The IRS is illegal and unconstitutional
The Federal Reserve is illegal and unconstitutional

Money Master

Part 1 - http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=money+masters (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=money+masters)

Part 2 - http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683&q=money+masters (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683&q=money+masters)

FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531)

America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173)

[Namus]

Can USA dissipate to separate states after that?

[Laworkerbee]

This thread was doing fine until getl0st & Namus decided to break out the bong.

[Lokos]

I seem to remember something about an agreement to not march on Baghdad...if Iraq agreed to WMD inspections. You don't get the "not" unless the "if" is fulfilled.


The end game, to me, seemed irrelevant.

I quote myself:


Easy: In 1991 the causus belli was not WMDs, Iraqi possession thereof, or their use. It was the invasion of Kuwait, and the destabilization of the regional balance of power, as well as the concurrent threat to the stability of the global oil market. For Washington a pre-eminent Iraq is about as useful as a pre-eminent Iran. The best combination is a balance of competing regimes, none of which can rise to regional dominance.

Therefore, equating GW2 with 'finishing the job' is strange. It is another reductio ad absurdum, in effect. The job in question wasn't even the job in 1991. The aim of the GW was achieved. The US was decisively the victor. The 2nd GW had a different motivation.


Are you actually postulating that the First Gulf War was fought over Iraqi WMDs?


We fought one war, and we were entitled to have it concluded before our "disarmed" enemy had a chance to strike at us.


Well, your 'disarmed' enemy was in a far worse state in 2003 than it was in 1991. But in 1991 you didn't go in on the pretense of being 'struck'. It was to expel Iraqi forces from the sovereign nation of Kuwait. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the two wars are entirely related, then their basis must be related. This amounts to one question: Were Iraqi WMDs the reasoning behind both Gulf Wars? They were not. Therefore, the wars are distinct, with distinct CBs.

The expense of maintaining a no-fly zone and bombing Iraqi AAA and SAM sites every few months aside, the US had accomplished its aims in GW1. It had neutered the state of Iraq. The job, in this case, was finished. GW2 is not the same job.


Hey guess what requires even less conviction to tackle...doing nothing. Plenty of that to go around.


Allow me to quote the whole passage:


Because 3rd world WMDs aren't the underlying issue behind the attack order. The US knows neither power could really have threatened it. If it could have, the US wouldn't have acted. The Cold War was one big 'waiting to happen' because neither side had the willingness to pull the trigger, knowing how likely it is to backfire on them. In invading Iraq, the US knew it posed no real danger. Real danger requires a lot more conviction to tackle!


The above is not about conviction. It is an assertion that WMDs were not the basis of the 2nd GW, as Iraq posed no realistic threat to the US. US national interest was pursued with an attack on Iraq. But it was not a security interest.

And that's exactly why NK is not being invaded. There is no reason to do so. The US, in the geostrategic sphere, is no moral paragon or crusader. Every day it deals with immoral regimes, and pursues its own interests amorally. It's realpolitick. Therefore, claiming moral outrage or an illusory danger of WMDs as justification for war is silly. The state is an amoral creature. It is eminently logical, within the confines of its own system of logic. Why not attack NK if you're going to attack Iraq? Because NK has nothing you want, nothing you need and cannot threaten you - regardless of how 'tough' a nut it is. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a unique strategic opportunity...


For those who insist on viewing the UN as the ultimate arbiter of truth, the fact that they believed (and still believe) Iraq had WMD, is a great way to derail them.


I, personally, believe the UN to be an irrelevant, archaic instrument of diplomacy. It is an arbiter of interests, and nothing more.


Shall we all wait for Iran to conclude it's "peaceful" nuclear program with no oversight, then in 5 years announce they have a nuclear weapon? Or will we risk being wrong in order to stop it? I for one am thankful that there are still nations willing to risk and be wrong, because waiting to be right can be far worse.


Like I said, I am not ascribing right or wrong to US actions. There's no place for 'right' and 'wrong' in politics. Realpolitick is exactly what it pertains to be. All nations today are realist monoliths. But I am a big proponent of the 'naked truth'. That is to say, I detest a power play being sugar-coated as anything but. Though I have nothing against power plays, as such.

Do you see what I mean?

Like I said, I won't be the judge of US 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. It's not my place. There is no truth[i]. Only [i]truths. Yours, mine and the other guy's. I take people's claims of Russia's or Serbia's 'evil' or 'immorality' as seriously as I take claims of US 'evil' or 'immorality'. That is to say, not at all.

Lokos

[ronnieraygun]

This thread was doing fine until getl0st & Namus decided to break out the bong.


FFS I LOLd. I went back and read that stuff.


On topic, I don't agree with David Tate about "world" opinion changing around the first engagement in Fallujah. It would have changed around a year earlier, at the start of hostilities in Iraq.

FWIW I enjoy reading Lokos from time to time. Sharp guy.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

We are all part of the declining West are we not? or are you going to shove us off to some North American block :|

Hopefully.
As I've lived in a post Imperial world all my life I find the prospect of observing America's decline from across the ocean rather appealing.

[mas-36]

They are too used to resting on their laurels.


Actually, we like to sit on the laurels fought for and won by our grandparents and claim that we, the present generation, earned them as well, though we all know they aren't ours to play with. I guess the laurels we won for Panama and Grenada are too small to sit on comfortably.

[Laworkerbee]

Hopefully.
As I've lived in a post Imperial world all my life I find the prospect of observing America's decline from across the ocean rather appealing.

If I go down I'm taking you with me :hug:

[Hollis]

If I go down I'm taking you with me :hug:


ex must be hoping with a decline of the US, me might be able to pick up a M1 Garand real cheap. It is too bad he still can not legally own one.

I don't think he tought it out very far. The US decline, lets see, the US stock market gets the sniffles, other stock markets gets a cold. So looking for the decline of the US, is kind of like "cutting off one's nose to spite their face."

[Laworkerbee]

"cutting off one's nose to spite their face."

good example, why he chooses not to see that we as in the "West" are all in this together I can't quite figure out.

[Atlantic Friend]

As soon as the Bush admin strarted making noises about Iraq, most reasonable folks had a giant 'WTF?!?' moment.

It sure was a WTF moment for me. Afghanistan was still under way, and suddenly wham bam it's all about Iraq, who has this, did that, said even worse.

On a purely cynical basis, though, it all made sense. Public opinion had not begun to ebb away from military action, Iraq was weak enough, and in some way the world was still waiting, psychologically, for the other shoe to fall after what seemed an all-too-easy Afghani campaign.

[BugHunt]

good example, why he chooses not to see that we as in the "West" are all in this together I can't quite figure out.


I dunno us silly billies in the UK kinda resent being part of the farce of Iraq - which Bush CHOOSE (with all the time in the world) to do without adequate resources and against his generals advice....

[Baboonass]

Never mind.

It's pointless to enter these discussions.

[Laworkerbee]

I dunno us silly billies in the UK kinda resent being part of the farce of Iraq - which Bush CHOOSE (with all the time in the world) to do without adequate resources and against his generals advice....

It's funny because I kind of blame the U.K. for letting us invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq never would have happened if the U.K. did not get involved and put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole operation with her participation.

[Jobu]

It's funny because I kind of blame the U.K. for letting us invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq never would have happened if the U.K. did not get involved and put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole operation with her participation.

Who can forget this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/blair.transcript/?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's funny because I kind of blame the U.K. for letting us invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq never would have happened if the U.K. did not get involved and put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole operation with her participation.


And there was me thinking that US conservatards were big on facing up to personal responsibility roflrofl

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If I go down I'm taking you with me :hug:


Personally I welcome the chaos to come. Should be great fun.
Anything goes and all that.:)
'Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!'

[BugHunt]

It's funny because I kind of blame the U.K. for letting us invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq never would have happened if the U.K. did not get involved and put a stamp of legitimacy on the whole operation with her participation.

For which that POS will forever be damned.
A million of his citizens marched against his false war....

And which country is queueing up $millions to have the lying toad in there lecture circuit?

Only reason i could see them paying to have him in a lecture hall in the UK is to punch his skull flat.

[Laworkerbee]

And there was me thinking that US conservatards were big on facing up to personal responsibility roflrofl

Wait I'm a conservative now, did I miss a meeting?

[Baboonass]

Wait I'm a conservative now, did I miss a meeting?

When you are dealing with the extremists, unless you fall directly into their line of thinking, you are the enemy.

You know, "you are either with us, or against us".;)



It's tounge in cheek dude, don't get all pissy, (you too ex_Stab).

[Laworkerbee]

I'm just trying to win STAB over like a girl thats hard to get. I conquered some Germans of team Eurowussie and he is next.

Plus Match I don't really get pissy anymore once I started taking **** therapy

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

US lost it's credibility when it's presidents started using the "Greatest Country on Earth" and "Leader of the Free World" tags

[nagant_m44]

US lost it's credibility when it's presidents started using the "Greatest Country on Earth" and "Leader of the Free World" tags

it certainly is a greater country than australia:)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Thats your opinion. I have a different view.

[joe mama]

Thats your opinion. I have a different view.

So are you saying Australia is the greatest? Well, you just lost your credibility.

Anyone who doesn't feel their own country is the greatest should consider moving. And if they do feel it, they shouldn't be afraid to say it, and who cares who's offended by hearing it. If you hear Bush saying America is the greatest as directed at non-Americans and meaning "America is the greatest, and you all suck!", then you're an idiot. If I heard your prime minister say Australia is the greatest, I'd think nothing of it. And if I did think anything of it, I'd think good for you to have a leader who isn't afraid to express some national pride.